1920-03-11

FRANCHISE ACT.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Militia and Acting Solicitor General) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 12, respecting the Election of Members of the House of Commons and the Electoral Franchise.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to explain briefly the Bill which I have just asked the leave of the House to introduce. The purpose of the Bill is threefold: In the first place, to fix a uniform franchise throughout the Dominion; in the second place, to provide a uniform method for the preparation of voters' lists; and, in the third place, to provide a simple and satisfactory method for the conduct of elections.
The franchise is to be established upon very broad principles. The only require-

ments will be those of British citizenship, residence in Canada for one year and in the particular constituency for two months, and the attainment of the age of twenty-one years; these requirements will apply in the case of male and female voters alike.
In regard to the preparation of voters' lists, the principle adopted is that the existing lists in any province which are authorized by law for use in provincial elections shall be utilized in Dominion elections, provided that they are not more than one year old, or that not longer than twelve months has elapsed between the completion of such lists and the issue of a writ for the Dominion election. Where such lists are not more than one year old they are to form the basis for the Dominion lists. In provinces where such lists exist they are adopted under the Bill; but power is given to add to such provincial lists names which should be added, and power also is given to take from such provincial lists the names of those persons which should be taken therefrom. That will provide an up-to-date list in all the provinces for use at a general election.
Where no such provincial lists exist the principle adopted by the Bill is, in urban municipalities, that of registration and, in rural municipalities, that of registration by way of enumeration. Urban municipalities are described in the Bill as cities, towns, and incorporated villages with populations of not less than 1,000. In such municipalities the principle of registration is very simple: All persons, male and female, will be required to register within the time prescribed by the Bill. When the registration period has expired appeals are permitted either by those whose names are not upon the lists, or against those whose names have been placed thereon. Those appeals in all provinces where there are what we know as County Judges are to those judges, who are appointed revising officers. In provinces where there are District Judges, as oppose! to County Judges, the appeals are to the District Judges.
In rural municipalities the procedure is a little different. Where there are no provincial lists which can be utilized under the terms of the Bill a registrar is appointed to prepare the list. He makes an enumeration of the voters in -the rural polling sub-divisions, notifying the community of the days during which he will act. When his list has been completed it must be returned to the proper officer. But in this case there is no revision or appeal, because there is a clause in the Bill which provides that any person who claims to be entitled to a vote, in a 22!
rural sub-division, and whose name has been omitted by the registrar, shall be entitled on polling day, on taking the prescribed election oath, to receive a ballot and cast his vote as any other elector is entitled to vote. It is therefore not necessary under this system to provide for any appeal or revision.
The machinery provided by the Bill for the conduct of elections does not differ very greatly from the machinery which has been utilized in this country during the past twenty-five or thirty years. A great many clauses of the old election law have been retained, some new ones have been added, and some have been incorporated from the English election law. I would call the attention of the House to thq references which appear at the end of the various sections in the Bill. The Bill will be printed in a day or two and then distributed. These references relate to the Dominion Election Act of 1896, to the subsequent election Acts passed in this country, and also to the British Election Act. But when you see a reference to any of these Acts at the enl of a section, it does not mean that that section has been copied verbatim into the new Act, because in a great many cases the old sections have had to be modified.
There are one or two innovations-I think they are innovations in this country. The Bill proposes to abolish the office of Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and to substitute an official to be known as the General Electoral Officer. The duties of the General Electoral Officer will be, generally speaking, to take charge of the election machinery and the conduct of elections in general throughout the Dominion. These duties will correspond to a large extent with those performed by the Dominion Returning Officer in the election of 1917.


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: Will he be a permanent official?


Hugh Guthrie: The Bill provides
that the General Electoral Officer of Canada shall be a parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons. He is to be a permanent officer. His tenure of office will be the same as that of a Superior Court Judge, and he can only be removed from office upon grounds similar to those upon whieh a Superior Court Judge can be removed. He will be in every way a permanent and independent officer.
There are other innovations, such as the provision for advance polls to enable railway employees, sailors, commercial travellers, and other persons whose usual business

takes them away from home from time to time to record their votes, the object of the provision being to give these classes of persons the right to vote notwithstanding their absence from the particular locality on polling day. That provision, I think, was in force during the election of 1917, but its terms have been somewhat elaborated in the new Bill. The period fixed between nomination day and polling day is fourteen days under the new law. I think I am correct in saying that as the Act is now drawn it will take about one month to carry out all preliminaries between the time when the registrars start to prepare their voters' lists and polling day.
When the Bill comes before the House on the second reading I hope to have an opportunity of making a more elaborate statement in regard to its provisions. Some of the methods proposed are quite new so far as Dominion elections are concerned, although all the systems, 1 think, which the Bill proposes have heretofore been adopted in some parts of Canada, and from the reports that have come to the Government's knowledge these provisions have worked exceedingly well! The Bill has been prepared with the idea of bringing about uniformity in all parts of Canada; of providing a simple, safe and expeditious method of compiling voters' lists; of providing generally as simple and expeditious election machinery as it is possible to provide. When hon. members have had an opportunity of reading, analysing and discussing the measures, I think they will come to the conclusion that the Bill has been prepared and is now offered to the House upon the foundation of equality and justice in every part of the Dominion.


Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: May I put a question to the hon. minister just to make one point perfectly clear? 1 understood him to state that the only requirement for the franchise under the proposed Bill is British citizenship. Will that restore the franchise to all citizens who were naturalized under the old naturalization law-which, I think, gave not British citizenship, but only Canadian citizenship? In other words, will the disabilities be removed that were imposed on citizens of foreign birth under the War-time Elections Act?


Hugh Guthrie: Any disability which
takes place under the Naturalization Act will still continue. Any person who under the Naturalization Act is precluded from naturalization cannot vote under this Act, because he is not a British subject.


William Daum Euler: Will people who were
naturalized under the Act of 1914 and the Act prior to that be disfranchised under the proposed Act?


Hugh Guthrie: The only disfranchising clause in regard to naturalization is the provision which was in our former law:	That no person should claim to
be a British subject by reason of marriage or relationship with any other person. That provision is continued in the present Bill.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: My hon. friend has
said that the basis of the franchise under the proposed Act is citizenship. Is there any exception to that rule?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, there is an exception which was provided under the Act of last session. It provides that where any person is disqualified by reason of race under the laws of any province from voting at any election in the province, the disqualification is continued for the purpose of Dominion elections.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I inquire when copies of the Bill will be available?


Hugh Guthrie: I expect that it will
be printed in two or three days.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Annual report of Superintendent General of Indian Affairs; copies of Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia.-Sir George Foster.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	Is there an embargo on Canadian cattle exported to Great Britain?
2.	If so, have any representations been made since January, 1918, to the Imperial Government asking for the repeal of such embargo?
3.	If so, when were these representations made?
4.	What is the nature of * these representations, and what was the reply of the Imperial Government?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	Yes. The legislation (United Kingdom) of 1896 prohibits the landing of cattle from all countries in the United Kingdom, except for purposes of immediate slaughter.

2.	Yes. The representations, however, were of an informal nature and were not made through the usual official channels.
3.	During the year 1919.
4.	The representations for the removal of the embargo were made .by Dr. Robertson and Mr. Arkell, the Live Stock Commissioner, through Colonel Amery, Parliamentary Secretary of the Colonial Office, and Lord Ernie, President of the Board of Agriculture. Both these gentlemen were seen on several occasions and the matter of the embargo discussed in detail. With Lord Ernie's approval, Dr. Robertson and Mr. Arkell conveyed similar representation# Isa the Scottish Board of Agriculture; The Scottish and English Farmers Unions; the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, The Agricultural Committee of the House of Commons, Special Committee of the London County Council and to several other important bodies in Scotland and in England, with the view sf furnishing information which would enlist their support in Canada's position. The arguments used made reference to the health of Canadian cattle; to the fact that Canada regularly grows more cattle than she can finish; to the advantage which British feeders had previously obtained in feeding Canadian cattle; to the interests of British consumers in increasing the supply of fresh killed meat and to the very great importance of building up an Empire source of supply in competition with the control of the British meat trade which had already been secured by American packers.
The campaign which was carried on by Dr. Robertson and Mr. Arkell led to the matter being taken up in the Imperial Parliament. A question on several occasions was asked respecting the position of the Government. In substance the reply of the Government fully recognized that the embargo could no longer be continued against Canadian cattle on the grounds of disease but that, in consideration of the unsettled condition of British agriculture and the lack of confidence amongst feeders and breeders which would be created by removing the embargo, the Government regarded it as inadvisable to take any action in the matter. It may be added that, in personal conversation with Dr. Robertson and Mr. Arkell, Lord Ernie gave it as his considered opinion that, in view of the unsettled state of British agriculture following war conditions, it would be quite inopportune to take any action toward the removal of the embargo at the present time.


DOMINION NOTES IN UNITED STATES.
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Are the notes of the Dominion of Canada taken at their face value on Canadian-owned railroads over the portions situate in the United
States?
2.	What value is placed on the above notes when presented on American branch lines of the Grand Trunk Railway system?


Hon. J. D. REID:: 1.	Canadian National Railways accept Canadian funds at face value for transportation to or from points in Canada to points on system in United States.
2.	Canadian currency is accepted at face value for tickets sold from points in United States to Canada on lines of Grand Trunk Railway system.


MR. G. M. PONTON.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Is Mr. G. M. Ponton of the Canadian Trade Commission conducting an industrial survey of the Dominion?
2.	Has he made a report?
3.	If so, what is the nature of the report?
4.	Is it the intention to continue this useful work?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	Mr. G. M. Ponton left Ottawa January 17, to conduct a preliminary survey concerning matters affecting production and commerce in Western Canada. It was the intention of the Commission to continue the work throughout the Dominion. The original time allotted for this preliminary work in Western Canada extended to the middle of April but under instructions Mr. Ponton returned to Ottawa on March 2.
2.	Mr. Ponton's report is in the course of preparation, and will be ready within the next fortnight.
3.	The report will deal principally with recommendations for continuation of the work, as owing to time allotted being cut short the work planned could not be fully carried out.
4.	Answer to this question must be delayed until Mr. Ponton's report is prepared.


MEDICAL OFFICERS AND NURSES.
*Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many medical officers and nurses were sent over to Europe after the 1st December, 1918?
2.	What was their destination?
3.	What work were they supposed to do?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	20 Medical officers; 61 nursing sisters.

2.	To report to the Director General of Medical Services, London, England.
3.	They were asked for by the Overseas Minister as reinforcements to the Overseas Military Forces of Canada, and were employed in the hospitals during a severe epidemic of influenza; also on demobilization work.


PETERBOROUGH POSTMASTER.
Mr. BURNHAM:: Who has been appointed postmaster of Peterborough in succession to the late Mr. Edgar?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: John E. Corkery,
the Assistant Postmaster.


CAMPBELLTON-GASPE STEAMSHIP SERVICE.
Hon. Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: 
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	No.
2.	Since the close of navigation in 1917.
3.	No.
4.	Yes, the Gulf of St. Lawrence Shipping & Trading Co. of Quebec hold a contract for this service.
5.	The Gulf of St. Lawrence fihipping & Trading Co. ran fortnightly trips last year between Montreal, Quebec, Gaspe and Pas-pebiac. There was no service to Campbellton.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY-VESSELS.
[Stage Direction]
#Mr. PARENT:
1.	Has the Canadian National Railway at the present time twenty-four or any number of vessels plying in various routes?
2.	If so, how and on what terms or conditions have 6aid vessels been acquired by said Canadian National Railway and what is the name of each steamer?
3.	Who is 'the present owner of each of said steamers or vessels?
4.	What is the tonnage of each?
5.	What port or ports is each one of them plying between?
Hon. J. D. REID:: 1.	Yes,-25.
2.	Vessels are being operated as provided for by Order in Council passed June 2, 1919.
Trade Route.	Owner.
Canadian Voyageur	. 4,575	St. John-London.	" Pioneer	. 8,408	Halifax-S. America.	" Warrior 	. 3,995	St. John-West Indies.	" Ranger 	. 8,382	St. John-Liverpool.	" Recruit 	. 3,964	Stranded account ice St. Lawrence.	" Volunteer 	. 4,485	Laid up at Quebec.	*" Trader 	. 3,341	Halifax-West Indies.	" 'Sailor 	. 3,357	Halifax-West Indies.	" Trooper 	. 4,540	Halifax-London.	H.M. the King" Seigneur 	. 8,391	Halifax-Live rpool.	represented" Signaller 	. 3,990	Halifax-West Indies.	by the" Miller 	. 8,390	Halifax-Liverpool.	Minister of" Adventurer 	. 3,408	Hal if ax-West Indies.	Marine and" Gunner 	. 3,990	Halifax-West Indies.	Fisheries." Aviator 	. 5,100	Halifax-West Indies.	" Sower	. 3,400	St. John-West Indies.	" Navigator 	. 4,575	St. John-London.	" Settler 	. 5,100	Halifax-Glasgow.	" Spinner 	. 8,393	Halifax-S. America.	" Raider 	. 5,100	Vancouver-Australia, N.Z.	" Importer 	. 8,390	Vancouver-Australia, N.Z.	" Exporter 	. 8,390	Vancouver-Australia, N.Z.	H.M. the King represented by theDrummond 	. 3,000	St. John-West Indies.	Minister ofSheba 	. 3,500	Hal if ax-West Indies.	Railways andMabee 	. 3,000	St. John-West Indies.	Canals.3,	4, and 5. Answered by No. 2.
[Mr. Guthrie. 1


SUPERINTENDENT OP SOREL SHIPYARD.
Mr. GERVAIS:: 1.	By whom has Mr. Jackson been replaced as superintendent of the Government shipyard at Sorel, and at what salary?
2.	Has he a practical knowledge of the English and French languages?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	No permanent appointment has been made. Louis Lacouture is Acting Officer in Charge. Salary, $2,100 plus bonus $228 per annum.
2.	Yes.


SHIPMENTS OF GOODS TO ROUMANIA THROUGH AMERICAN PORTS.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Are Canadian goods, purchased by Roumanians on the credit of the twenty-five million dollars, established by the Government, and destined for Roumania, still being shipped through an American port?
2.	If so, why does not the Government insist that such goods, destined for Roumania, be forwarded through a Canadian port?
3.	Will the Government give this important matter its most serious consideration?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Shipments to
Roumania are being forwarded from Canadian ports. The total quantity shipped via Canadian ports has been 32,881 cubic tons, and via New York 2,850 tons. The traffic from Canadian ports has been handled in full ship loads. At the close of navigation last fall it was necessary to relieve the various manufacturers of their accumulation of goods packed ready for shipment, although this quantity was not nearly sufficient to make up a cargo. About 75 per cent of the material consisted of roofing, a comparatively low-priced commodity, which made the cost of storage, insurance and other charges prohibitive. There is no regular steamship service from Canadian ports to the Black sea, but the Furness-Withy company have a regular sailing from New York. In order to relieve the accumulation of goods in the manufacturers' stores, it was necessary to forward 'these goods through New York where they could be shipped without storage or insurance charges being incurred.
Meanwhile, the remainder of the goods to he shipped are being accumulated at Sydney and St. John, and as soon as there is a sufficient quantity to warrant chartering a vessel the remainder of the shipments will be made from these ports.


EXPORT OF HIDES TO UNITED STATES.
[Stage Direction]
' Mr. FOURNIER:
1.	Has an Order in Council been passed by the Government preventing the exportation of hides to the United States?
2.	If so, on what date was that Order in Council passed?
3.	Since the passing of that order, how many manufacturers or exporters have obtained permits to ship hides to the United States?
4.	What are the names of these favoured manufacturers and exporters of hides?
5.	Under these special permits, how many carloads of hides have they exported up to date?
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	On the recommendation of the War Trade Board June 13, 1918, and on the recommendation of the Cost of Living Commissioner August 2, 1919.
3.	Under the War Trade Board order hides were first offered to the Canadian trade and after ten days if they were not absorbed in the domestic market licenses to export were granted. On January 1, 1919, the War Trade Board issued a general license covering the export of hides, but an embargo was reimposed on August 2, 1919, at the instance of the Cost of Living Commissioner. After a consultation with the Canadian tanners, hide dealers, and boot manufacturers, it was decided to grant permits on all applications.
4.	There were no favoured exporters; all applications were treated alike and no one was discriminated against.
5.	Since August 2 permits were issued covering the exportation of 631 cars of hides.


MAIL CARRIERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. DESAULNIEiRS:
1.	How many mail carriers were appointed in 1919, and what was the name of each person appointed, place of residence, date of appointment and salary?
2.	What distance are they required to cover each day when delivering mail?
Newton Wesley Rowell: I should like to
inquire of the hon. member whether, in using the words " mail carrier " he means letter carriers or mail contractors?
Question stands.


GRQSSE ISLE PUBLIC WORKS.
Mr. DECHENE:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to construct wharves at Grosse Isle this coming season, and extend same to deep water so that delay to ships may be prevented whilst inspection and disembarkation of passengers is being effected?
2.	If so, what amount will be expended therefor, and when will construction be started?


Hon. J. D. REID:: This information will be given when the Estimates are laid before Parliament.


Mr. DECHENE:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to make improvements to those buildings at the Quarantine Station in Grosse Isle which are intended for immigration purposes?
2.	Will the hospital, the construction of which has been started, be completed in the coming summer?
3.	Will the sheds, which at present serve to shelter immigrants, be replaced by more suitable buildings? If so, when will such improvements be started?


John Dowsley Reid: This information will be given when the Estimates are laid before Parliament.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.
Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	How many officers are being retained' in the service of the Militia Department at Headquarters at Ottawa who have not seen service overseas?
2.	Give the names and positions and salaries, and length of time in the service, respectively.
3.	Are returned men available for those positions?


SAAR VALLEY COMMISSION.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. 0. W. PECK (Skeena): In view ot the fact that a statement was made in the House by, I think, the Minister of Customs, that Mr. Waugh had been appointed to the Saar Valley Commission, I should like to know whether or not a returned soldier was available for that position, as a returned soldier would be particularly and peculiarly qualified to fill the position.
Right Hon.   S@: The Saar Valley Commission is a body which is under the direction of the League of Nations, and the appointees are the appointees of the League of Nations. Certain countries have representation on that commission, the British Empire being one of those countries, and Mr. Waugh has been appointed as the representative of the British Empire on that commission. The Government of Canada was asked to name a fit and proper person as a member of the commission, and the Government gave the very best attention that it possibly could to the selection of the proper man in the time which it had at its disposal, for it was very pressing that this appointment should be made early. The names of a number of gentlemen were canvassed, and what we particularly wanted was to get a man of practical experience in municipal utilities and their working, and after the best consideration that could be given to the selection of a man of that
[Mr. J. D. Reid.l
kind who was available, Mr. Waugh was recommended to the position. Since that recommendation, I understand, though no official communication has been received- and it was not necessary that there should be-that he has been (appointed us the chairman of the commission; that is, the chairmanship of the commission fell to the British Empire, and Mr. Waugh will take that position. Mr. Waugh was not in service himself across the seas, but he had two sons in service, one of whom, if I am correctly informed, met his death in battle; and whilst Mr. Waugh was not himself an actual soldier, he has thus a claim of high character in connection with war service.


OLIVER-ST. PAUL DE METIS RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. HENRY ARTHUR MACKIE (Edmonton East):: I should like to ask the Minister of Railways when we may expect to have completed the Oliver-St. Paul de Metis railway, a portion of which is in my riding. A number of the farmers there drove their cattle to fields where there was feed, and now they want to utilize the road to get their cattle back. The road has been under construction since 1909.


John Dowsley Reid: I could hardly catch what the hon. gentleman said. Does he ask when construction will be commenced on a road in his locality.


Henry Arthur Mackie: When will the
Oliver-St. Paul de Metis branch of the Canadian Northern, which has been under construction since 1909, be completed?


John Dowsley Reid: I could not answer
offhand, but I will make a note of the hon. gentleman's question and be able to answer him probably to-morrow or Monday.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The fact that the answer to that question cannot be given offhand is evidence that it is one that ought to have been put on the Order Paper.


ADMIRAL JELLICOE'S REPORT.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The
Minister of Marine and Fisheries laid on the table of the House yesterday a copy of Admiral Jellieoe's report. Will copies be available for all the members?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: Ony a limited number of copies are now printed, and in the English language only; but to-morrow I will place before the House a motion,

which I hope will receive approval that a sufficient number be printed in both languages for every member of the House.


NOISE IN THE CHAMBER.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: I
should like to call your attention, Sir, to the circumstances under which we are met at the present moment, and which are very disconcerting. I have been endeavouring for a number of years to practice the apostolic maxim or to follow the apostolic example and say to myself:	" In whatsoever
state I am, therewith I shall be content." But there has been, during the half hour we have been in session to-day a periodic knocking which has made it absolutely impossible for us at this end of the Chamber to follow the proceedings in the House. The Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) is a very fine speaker, and when the knocking was not going on I could hear everything he said; but the knocking immediately took away my ability to hear him, and what was much worse than that, Sir, I could not follow you in prayer. May I suggest that in the few hours that we meet in the afternoon, the knocking so near the Chamber should not proceed?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I might inform the hon. member as well as the House that the Speaker has not been spared more or less knocking whether the House was in session or not, in consequence of the inconvenience to hon. members of occupancy of the new building. I appreciate, however, the difficulty at the moment, and I will endeavour, if possible to have the workmen cease working so near the Chamber during sitting hours as to inconvenience hon. members.


LETTER CARRIERS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOHN A. CURRIE (Simcoe North): I should like to ask a question of the representative of the Postmaster General in the House. There is a good deal of unrest amongst the letter carriers, and there are threats of a strike in the city of Toronto. I understand that some arrangement has been [DOT]reached between the letter carriers and the Government, and that some delay has occurred in putting that arrangement into effect. Is there any possibility of anything being done to avert that strike and trouble such as we had a few year ago.
Newton Wesley Rowell: I assume that what my hon. friend refers to is the question of the classification going into effect with reference to the letter carriers. The Bill passed last session re reclassification of the Civil Service was to go into effect on the 1st of April, 1920. It was contended that it should have gone into effect a year earlier, and when the Bill was before the House, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), who was in charge of it, stated that the question would receive further consideration at the hands of the Government and, if necessary, an amendment would be brought down this session making the change. It is the intention of the Government to submit an amendment at this session providing that reclassification shall go into effect from the 1st of April, 1919. I think that is the point upon which there is some complaint; but until the amendment is passed, I presume no compensation can be paid on the basis of it.


Mr. CURRIE:: When will this legislation be introduced?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There are under consideration, I believe, certain other amendments to the Civil Service Act, and the view was that it was much better to have one Bill covering all the points than to introduce separate Bills dealing with separate matters, but the Bill will be brought down at the earliest possible moment.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I should like to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) whether the National Railway Company, the organization of which was provided for by the National Railway Corporation Act, if I remember the title correctly, passed in 1918, has been formed, and if so, who are the officers. If nothing has been done in the matter as yet, when may we expect action to be taken under that legislation?


John Dowsley Reid: No action has been taken in that direction as yet. We have been waiting until it was decided what action was to be taken in connection with the Grand Trunk Railway system, so that in forming the organization we could take into consideration all the railways that go to make up the National system.


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
(Mr. McMASTER:
For a copy of all correspondence, agreements and contracts, between the Government and any banks touching the payment of officers
[Stage Direction]
and men in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, especially as regards the rates of exchange prevailing between Canadian and British currency and the manner in which the same affected the pay of said officers and men, together with copies of all departmental or other Government orders or regulatioons dealing with the subject of soldiers' pay and the effect of fluctations of exchange thereon.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council) moved the following resolution:
Resolved by the	House of Commons
That it is expedient that Parliament do approve of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Bulgaria, signed at Neuilly-sur-Seine on the 27th day of November, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, a copy of which has been laid before Parliament, and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty, acting for Canada, by the plenipotentiaries therein named, and that this House do approve of the same.
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: Are copies of the Treaty available?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Copies of the Treaty have been distributed. An order was given for the printing of it the second day the House was in session.


Mr. FIELDING:: How have they been distributed?	V


Newton Wesley Rowell: Through the post office.


Mr. BUREAU:: I never received a copy.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Nor have I received mine.


Newton Wesley Rowell: A special order of the House was given for distribution of copies.


Jacques Bureau: I have gone to the post office regularly but have not so far found a coov in the box.


Mr. DENIS:: I for one have not received it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Do I understand that hon. members desire to have the resolution stand?


Henri Sévérin Béland: We do not object to a statement bv the Minister.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Under the circumstances, Mr. Sneaker. I will make a statement with reference to the Treaty, and if my hon. friends desire that discussion on it shall stand there will be no objection to this course. I assumed however, that hon. members had received copies of the Treaty. [iMr. McMaster.]
The adoption of this Resolution involves :-
(1)	The recognition of democratic control of foreign policy and that Canada should not be finally committed to important international engagements such as are embodied in this Treaty without the consent of Parliament.
(2)	A recognition that in any war in which the British Empire is engaged and in which Canada has taken part is a matter of concern to the people of Canada; that the terms of the Treaty of Peace bringing such a war to an end are also a matter of concern to the people of Canada and that such a treaty should be ratified by His Majesty until it has been approved by Canada as of the five nations of the British Commonwealth.
(3)	A reaffirmation by Parliament of its approval of the creation and maintenance of a League of Nations for the promotion of international co-operation and the achievement of international .peace and security by the methods set forth in the Covenant of the League.
(4)	A reaffirmation by Parliament of its approval of the Labour Clauses and of the creation and maintenance of the International Labour organization under its provisions.
(5)	A reaffirmation by Parliament of its approval of the position and status accorded to Canada in the League of Nations and in the International Labour Organization and of its determination to maintain that status.
Dealing first with the terms of the Treaty, may I briefly point out to the House its main provisions, and say in passing that the general lines of the Treaty are similar to those contained in the Treaty of Peace with Germany which has already been approved by the House, and similar also to those embodied in the Treaty of Peace with Austria which was likewise approved by Parliament. These general lines were discussed and agreed upon when the Prime Minister and his colleagues were in Paris. The necessary adaptation of those general provisions to the situation in Bulgaria also came under consideration and review, and the Prime Minister was himself the Vice Chairman of the Commission of the Peace Conference on Greek claims, which gave special consideration to certain aspects of the territorial situation in the Balkans.
Part One, as in the German and Austrian treaties, incorporates the (Covenant of the League of Nations. As in those cases, Bulgaria is not an original member, but may

be admitted when two-thirds of the assembly have consented. Hon. members will recall that under the covenant of the League of Nations none of the enemy countries are made members of the League, but they have the right to become members, under Article One of the covenant, upon a vote of the assembly and after compliance with certain conditions such as other nations, not members, are required to comply with.
Part Two defines the frontiers of Bulgaria, under which Bulgaria parts with most of the territory which, with the assistance of her then allies, Serbia and Greece, she won from Turkey in the war of 1912. Western Thrace, including the rich tobacco district of Xanthi and the Port of Dede-Agatch, is ceded to the Principal Allied and Associated Powers for future disposition; but in return these Powers undertake to ensure to Bulgaria commercial access to the Aegean Sea.
To the Serb-Croat-Slovene State she cedes the district of Stroumitsa, which experience has proved was too great a menace to the Serbian main railway to Salonika, while in the hands of a presumably hostile state. A further small rectification of the frontier is made in favour of Serbia on the west of Bulgaria in order that the Serbian town of Nish shall not be so exposed to the menace of the Dragoman Pass through the mountains. Roumania keeps the Southern Dodrudja which she seized when Bulgaria was at war with Serbia and Greece in 1913.
The territorial result is that both the Serb-Croat-Slovene State (Yugo-Slavia) and Roumania are more than treble the size of Bulgaria and have become Danubian or European States, while Greece, if she retains the territory now occupied by her in the Smyrna region, will be more than twice as large as Bulgaria, and will have ceased to be a purely Balkan State. Henceforth that term would apply strictly only to Bulgaria and Albania.
The overlapping and confusion of races in the Balkan Peninsula is such that no line can conceivably be drawn, by which each State would include all its nationals within its boundaries, while entirely excluding men of other races; nor is it practicable to pay much attention to Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian historical frontiers in a region where the tide of conquest ebbed and flowed during centuries prior to the absorption of the whole by the Turks. Consequently there are few districts which cannot be claimed on some grounds by at least two States and to satisfy them all
would be a superhuman task even were the settlement not complicated by the fact that in the world war Bulgaria was on the losing, and Serbia, Roumania and Greece were on the winning side.


Mr. CANNON:: Is there any provision about Macedonia?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is no specific provision dealing with Macedonia.
Part III relates to various political adjustments. Bulgaria recognizes the Serb-Croat-Slovene State. She recognizes the other peace settlements concluded by the Allies and Associated Powers with the other enemy Powers. She undertakes to ensure full protection of life and liberty to all inhabitants of Bulgaria irrespective of birth, nationality, language, race or religion, and these guarantees are placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations. There is a provision also by which Greece agrees to afford protection to racial, religious or linguistic minorities.
Although at first recalcitrant Roumania, Serbia and Greece have now signed the Treaty with Bulgaria, (December 9th), thus concluding the Balkan settlement. Roumania and Serbia have also signed Treaties with the Allied and Associated Powers providing for the protection of minorities.
Part IV is a limitation of Bulgarian armaments. Universal compulsory military service is abolished and the voluntary system, with a twelve year period of service, is substituted. Bulgaria's total military forces are not to exceed 20,000 men. There are stringent provisions for the reduction of munition stores, guns, air craft and other armament, while the production of poison gases and liquids is forbidden. The manufacture of arms and munitions of war shall be carried on in a single factory under the ownership and control of the State. Bulgarian war ships are to be surrendered and Bulgaria may only maintain a few small boats for police and fishery duties on the Danube and the coast. Air craft and equipment are to be surrendered and no air forces are to be maintained in the future.
These disarmament provisions are to be carried out under the supervision of an Inter-Allied Commission of Control.
These provisions, providing for disarmament and limiting the strength of military forces are incorporated in the Treaty in pursuance of the policy set forth in the Covenant of the League of Nations for the reduction of armies and armaments. These reductions are imposed under the treaties on enemy countries but provision is made by

the Covenant of the League of Nations for the appointment of a commission to investigate the strength of the armies and armaments of countries which are members of the League and to make recommendations to those countries in reference to a reduction in the size of their armies.
Part V provides for the repatriation of prisoners of war and interned civilians who are Bulgarian nationals. An Inter-Allied Commission for inquiry and control is set up to search for non-repatriated Allied nationals, and for establishing the criminal acts punishable under the penalty provisions. Each side agrees to respect and maintain the graves of the soldiers and sailors buried in their respective territories.
Part VI binds Bulgaria to hand over persons accused of crimes in violation of the laws and customs of war, and to recognize the right of the Allies to bring such persons before military tribunals for trial and punishment.
Part VII provides for reparation by Bulgaria. She recognizes that by joining- in the war of aggression waged by Germany and Austria she has caused the Allied Powers great losses and sacrifices for which she ought to make complete reparation. On the other hand the Allies recognize that her resources are not sufficient for this. Bulgaria agrees, therefore, to pay, and the Allies agree to accept, as being such reparation as Bulgaria is able to make, the sum of 2,250,000,000 francs in gold to be discharged by a series of half yearly payments with provision for the payment of interest and for a sinking fund. She also agrees to return to Greece, Roumania or Serbia the securities, records and other objects seized from the territories of those countries, and to these States she also undertakes to hand over large numbers of cattle, horses, mules and sheep in reparation for seizures made. In compensation for the destruction of Serbian coal mines by Bulgarian armies Bulgaria is to deliver to Serbia fifty thousand tons of coal a year for five years. To oversee the execution of these reparation provisions an Inter-Allied Commission, composed of three members appointed by the British Empire, France and Italy, is to be set up at Sophia. It is in the nature of a Sub-Commission to the Reparation Commission established under the German Treaty. It will have power to recommend to the Reparation Commission either a reduction or a postponement of the sums to be paid by Bulgaria if it finds that her resources and capacity to pay are inadequate.
Part VIII is concerned with the financial aspects of the settlement. -It deter-

mines the priority of the charges for the cost of military occupation, for the service of the external pre-war Ottoman public debt, and for the costs of reparation. Provisions are made for the protection of allied nationals in respect of their pre-war financial dealings with Bulgaria or Bulgarian nationals with regard to state securities, private mortgages, etc.
These provisions relating to debts and financial matters are of special interest to Canada in view of the fact that there are a number of Bulgarian nationals living in Canada and there is a certain amount of enemy property in this country. The provisions of this clause are similar in their general terms to those contained in the treaties with Germany and Austria. The same may be said in regard to the clauses dealing with aerial navigation, wharves, docks and railways. Provision is made that the Danube shall be declared to be an international waterway and also for an international commission to govern it. The labour clauses of the Treaty are identical in their terms with those embodied in the Treaty with Germany and Austria.
The foregoing is a brief outline of the terms of this Treaty. To go back to the two groups of clauses in the Treaty which are of most immediate concern to Canada, I should like for a few minutes to speak in reference to the League of Nations and to the labour clauses of the Treaty.
First in reference to the League of Nations -and I mention this because of its relation to the question which is now before us of Canada's position and status under the treaty. Hon. members will recall that the League has two definite objectives: One is the promotion of international co-operation; the other is the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security. Four methods are proposed by which those two great objectives are to be secured. The first is an agreement by the nations not to resort to war-I shall not now go into the details of the provisions for attaining that object-but the agreement of the nations not to resort to war is, I venture to think, having regard to all the conditions, the most important feature of the Treaty. If any nation does resort to war in violation of its obligations, it immediately becomes at war with all other nations members to the League.
The second is what we might describe as the abolition of secret diplomacy. In the Treaty it is defined as "the prescription of open, just and honourable relations between nations." To secure that result it is pro-

vided that all treaties which are inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant must be modified or terminated without delay, and the nations parties to the Covenant agree that they will take such action in order to bring their international obligations into harmony with the terms of the Covenant. It is also provided that all treaties concluded in future must be filed or registered with the Secretary of the League, and such treaties are open to all the members of the League so that their contents may be known.


Lucien Cannon: Will the hon. minister permit me a question? Has this been done as far as the Anglo-Persian Treaty is concerned?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Anglo-Persian Treaty was concluded before the League went into effect. But that Treaty must be brought into conformity with the terms of the Covenant, if it does not now actually conform to it. The Covenant provides for all cases of treaties concluded prior to its going into effect.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do I understand t). minister to say that the treaty-making power of Great Britain is now made subject to the approval of the League of Nations and, to that extent, the independence of Great Britain taken away?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I would not put it in
that way, but rather that Great Britain binds herself, as do all the other nations parties to the League, not to enter into international obligations inconsistent with the provisions of the Covenant. All treaties when entered into must, as I said, be filed or registered with the Secretary-General of the League, and they do not become valid until they are so registered.


Jacques Bureau: I understand that past treaties also must be registered with the Secretary of the League?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, past treaties must be either rescinded or amended so as to bring them into conformity with the Covenant.
Then the third method for attaining the objects of the League is the establishment of the firm understandings of international law, as the rule of conduct among governments. In other words, just as in all civilized communities where law is administered individuals are governed by the rule of law in their relations one with another, the Covenant of the League provides that the firm understandings of international law shall be recognized by the nations parties
to the League as binding upon them and as governing their conduct in relation to one another.
Then the fourth is the maintenance of respect for all treaty obligations. Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that at the outbreak of the war Germany laid down the principle that an international obligation should not be considered binding upon a nation longer than that nation considered it to be in its own selfish interest to so recognize it; when in the view of the nation it no longer served its purpose, it might repudiate, just as Germany repudiated her obligations under the treaty with Belgium. The principle that nations must respect their international obligations is embodied in this Covenant. The only way they can escape these obligations is by terminating the treaty in the manner provided in the treaty itself, or by a reconsideration of its terms under the provisions of the Covenant of the League.


John Hampden Burnham: If it is regular, I wish to ask the hon. minister-at a somewhat inopportune juncture I admit-if the vote of Canada in the League of Nations is as part of the British Empire?


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friend has no objection I will come to that in due course and discuss it. I wish to deal with this in logical order.


Lucien Cannon: I would like to ask the minister if the reservations adopted by Switzerland when she decided to enter the League of Nations are not conflicting with the general principles just laid down and explained by him?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We have not yet received any official information as to the reservations adopted by Switzerland. I am therefore not in a position to give my hon. friend an answer to that question.
The organization of the League-and now I come to the question of the Council and the Assembly-consists of a Council, an Assembly, and a Secretariat. The Council, as hon. members will recall, is a body of nine, composed of the representatives of the five Great Powers, and four others representing the smaller powers, to be chosen by the Assembly when it meets. Pending the meeting of the Assembly the names are specified in the Treaty. As I now recall them they are Belgium, Brazil, Greece and Spain. When the Assembly meets it will be in a position to choose the four members who are to represent the members other than the five Great Powers.

The Assembly is composed of representatives of the members of the League. Each member of the League is entitled to send three delegates to the Assembly, but each member has only one vote. The Council will under normal conditions be the working body of the League. Its powers are set forth in the Covenant. It has all the powers of Assembly, with but few exceptions. It has the power to do the important work of the League.
The Assembly has all the powers of the Council, and it has also certain specified prerogatives. One of the most important is that of choosing the representatives on the Council of the powers other than the Great Powers. It must decide on the admission of new members to the League. Under certain conditions it has power upon reference from the Council, to investigate and pass upon matters originally referred to the Council
The actual working operations of the League are carried on by the Secretariat. That is, an international organization acting under the instructions of the Council carries on the work between the meetings of the Council and is the real working instrument of the League.
It is important to bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that except as otherwise expressly provided in the Treaty,'all decisions of both the Council and the Assembly must be unanimous. The cases where unanimity is not required are relatively few. In other words, the great bulk of the work of the League can only be done if the members of the Council or the Assembly are unanimous. Some objection has been urged from some quarters to unanimity being required. The answer-which, I submit, is a good one-is that it is essential that public opinion should support this great international experiment, the greatest which the statesmen of the world have ever tried. After all, the success or failure of the League will depend upon the public opinion and the moral sentiment of the world. If public opinion and the moral sentiment of the world-the sentiment for justice, for peace and good international relations-are not sufficiently strong to back up the decisions of the Council and the Assembly, the League must fail, as other international experiments have [DOT]failed. Therefore in the great majority of cases the decision must be unanimous.
I now come to the question of the status of Canada and the other self-governing dominions. I pointed out a moment ago that the Council was composed of representatives of the five great powers and of 
four others to be chosen by the Assembly. The question was raised overseas whether Canada and the other Dominions were entitled to be chosen as members of the Council, or whether by reason of their relation to Great Britain as part of the British Empire they were disqualified from being so chosen. A reading of the terms of the Covenant makes it perfectly clear, I should say, that they have exactly the same rights as all other members and are entitled to be chosen members of the Council.


William Stevens Fielding: Who raised the question? Who raised any doubt whatever about the matter, when a reading of the terms of the Covenant clearly shows that there is no question about it?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I understand that the
question was raised in some quarters at Paris; I am not in a position at the moment to say who were the parties who raised it. But in older to prevent any misunderstanding so far as the great powers were concerned, the Prime Ministers of Great Britain and France and the President of the United States signed a statement, which was submitted to the House last session, in which they affirmed that that was their interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty and that it was clear that Canada and the other Dominions were entitled to be chosen among the nations to nominate members to the Council.


William Stevens Fielding: Eligible.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, they are eligible.


John Hampden Burnham: Shall we have that statement laid before the House?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It was laid before the House at the last session. My hon. friend will find it in the address made by the Secretary of State (Hon. Mr. Sifton) with regard to the Treaty.


Lucien Cannon: Is that document an official interpretation or simply a personal opinion?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is the opinion-it could not be anything more-of the Prime Ministers of Great Britain and France and of the President of the United States. I assume that should any question arise in the Council with regard to the matter, the representatives of these nations would not depart from that interpretation. But my own view is the same as that of the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), that on the reading of the Covenant itself it is clear that Canada and the other Dominions are eligible for election to the Council. The

statement to which I have referred is more for the purposes of confirmation than anything else.


William Daum Euler: If there were a difference of opinion, upon what authority would the interpretation finally depend? Could the matter be referred to any authority that had jurisdiction? '


Newton Wesley Rowell: I assume that if a dispute arose the matter would finally be decided by the Council, unless it was referred to the Court of International Justice when constituted under the Treaty. But in this statement the Prime Ministers of Great Britain and France and the President of the United States say that the terms of the Covenant should receive a broad end generous interpretation in order that it may accomplish its obvious purpose, and that in their opinion no question could be raised on that point.
In reference to the Assembly, it is expressly provided that it shall be composed of representatives of the members of the League and as Canada and the other Dominions are members, there is no question about their right to vote in the Assembly, the question of our voting rights under Article 15 has been raised. Article 15 of the Covenant of the League provides as follows:
If there should arise between members of the League any dispute likely to lead to a rupture, which is not submitted to arbitration in accordance with Article 13, the members of the League agree that they will submit the matter to the Council.
That is, for investigation and conciliation. Another clause of that same Article provides:
The Council may in any case under this Article refer the dispute to the Assembly. The dispute shall be so referred at the request of either party to the dispute, provided that such request be made within fourteen days after the submission of the dispute to the Council.
In any case referred to the Assembly, all the provisions of this Article and of Article 12 relating to the action and powers of the Council shall apply to the action and powers of the Assembly, provided that a report made by the Assembly, if concurred in by the representatives of those members of the League represented on the Council and of a majority of the other members of the League, exclusive in each case of the representatives of the parties to the dispute, shall have the same force as a report by the Council concurred in by all the members thereof other than the representatives of one or more of the parties to the dispute.
To illustrate, suppose a dispute should arise between any two nations. Simply in order to bring the point home, we will assume that the dispute is between the British
Empire and the United States. If that dispute is of such a character that it is likely to lead to a rupture in international relations and is referred not to arbitration but to the Council for investigation and conciliation, then either party may ask that it be referred to the Assembly. If it is referred to the Assembly and the Assembly investigates the matter and reports upon it, that report, if concurred in by the members of the Council who are members of the Assembly and by a majority of the other members of the League has the same force and effect as if decided by the Council and concurred in by all the members of the Council, exclusive in each case of the parties to the dispute.
Two questions have been raised under this article. In case there is a dispute, to which any portion of the British Empire is a part, with any foreign country, could the other portions of the British Empire vote in the Assembly in such a case? The view of the Government, and it is the view of the Government of Great Britain also, is that no other portions of the British Empire could vote under those conditions, and the reason is simple. If it be a dispute likely to lead to a rupture, so long as we acknowledge allegiance to the same Sovereign as does Great Britain, as do the other portions of the Empire, then such a dispute is a matter of interest to all portions of the Empire.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Then Canada has no discretion in such a case?


Newton Wesley Rowell: In a case like that, Canada would be a party interested and would not claim a right to vote.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In the Assembly?


Newton Wesley Rowell: In the Assembly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And would not have the right?


Newton Wesley Rowell: And under the Treaty would not have the right to vote.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is what is contended in the United States.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is contended, but there is no objection, and there never has been any objection on the part of the Government of Canada, nor on the part of the Government of Great Britain, to that contention. Lord Grey, in his letter, made that point perfectly clear, and I hope I have made it perfectly clear, so that there will be no misunderstanding about it.


John Hampden Burnham: Does not that mean that the status of Canada is not the same

as that of any or every other member of the League?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, I do not think that is the meaning at all. It simply means that Canada and the other dominions bear such a relation to Great Britain and to each other as nations of equal status in the British Empire under a common Sovereign, that a dispute likely to lead to a rupture which may result in war, is a matter in which all are interested. Therefore, by reason of being interested, they are not entitled to vote.


John Hampden Burnham: Do I understand that that is not a matter of right, but a matter of good taste?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, it is a matter of right, because, according to the Treaty, parties interested are not entitled to vote.


William Stevens Fielding: Canada being in the Assembly as a nation, independent of and separate from Great Britain, is not Canada an independent party?
IMr. ROWELL: Canada's position is as independent as Great Britain's but she is not independent of the British Empire, she is a part of the British Empire.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In a case where Canada would be immediately interested, as, for instance, in the Alaskan boundary question, would Canada then be precluded from registering a vote through her representative in the Assembly of the League?


Newton Wesley Rowell: If a dispute of that particular character arose, and it were dealt with in that way, yes. The provisions of the treaty provide for arbitration, judicial determination and conciliation. If a matter is referred to arbitration, this provision does not apply at all, and all nations agree that matters suitable for arbitration must be referred to arbitration, and all agree to accept the award of the arbitrators. Therefore, if it be a proper subject for arbitration, this provision does not apply. It may be a matter for judicial determination when the International Court of Justice is established. If it be a matter for judicial determination, then this question does not arise. 'It arises only in the case of a question not suitable for either arbitration or judicial determination, where it is a question for conciliation which has been referred by the council to the Assembly for report.


Lucien Cannon: Do I understand the minister aright when 1 interpret his opinion as having the following effect, that Canada will have a vote or have something to say

on all questions in which she is not directly interested as Canada nor a part of the British Empire, but that otherwise she will have nothing to say?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is not the understanding.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is what it is.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Let us take one step at a time. If the matter be one for arbitration, then if Canada be concerned, she has full say in reference to the submission, the same as any other member. If the matter be one for judicial determination, she has exactly the same right of reference as any other country. If the matter be one for conciliation and if it be referred to the Assembly in the way I have mentioned, a report made by the Assembly with the majority I have indicated will have the same force and effect as a decision by the council concurred in by all the members except the parties to the dispute. What is the effect of a report of the Assembly under those conditions? Simply this, the report is published to the world, and the other nations bind themselves not to go to war with any nation which carries out the recommendations contained in that report. Dealing first with the Council. The dispute is investigated. If all parties, other than parties interested, reach a unanimous conclusion ; they make a report and recommendation. All the nations bind themselves not to go to war with the nation that lives up to that report. That is the whole obligation. If that report is referred to the Assembly and the decision is concurred in by the members of the Assembly, who are members of the Council, and by a majority of the other members of the Assembly, then the report has the same effect and no more. In the great majority of cases, as I intimated in opening, the decision of both the Council and the Assembly must be unanimous; and Canada, as a member, if she dissents from the conclusion, by forcing her dissent, prevents the unanimity necessary to the Assembly reaching a decision on the point. In the same way in the Council, dissent by any one of the members prevents the unanimity necessary to the decision. Let me take a case which was raised last session as an illustration. If a dispute should arise and war should break out, and the Council, under the terms of the Covenant, meets to recommend what military forces should be used with a view to putting an end to that war and bringing about peace, the Council cannot make any recommendation except a unanimous one,

and any nation which might be called upon to make a contribution is made a member of the Council for the purpose of considering that matter. Therefore, if the question of military contribution should come up in reference to any country concerned, that country thereby becomes a member of the Council for considering that very matter. The Council could not reach a decision that the contribution should be made without the consent of that member. Therefore, the matter goes back to the principle I mentioned before, namely, that the League can only be effective if it carries the goodwill and hearty co-operation of its members.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is no provision in
the Covenant that a member of the Assembly who is called into the Council for the purpose of discussing a certain matter shall have a vote.


Newton Wesley Rowell: They are made members of the Council for that purpose.


William Stevens Fielding: With the right to
vote.
Mr, ROWELL:	They have the right to
vote. That has never been questioned.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend knows
very well that that is not stipulated in the Covenant.


Newton Wesley Rowell: They are made members of the Council, and every member has the right to vote.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The nine members have
the right to vote.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The others too. That has never been questioned by any of the members of the League.


Henri Sévérin Béland: 


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I must remind hon. members that we are not nowin Committee and arguments between hon. members cannot be permitted.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I would also draw my
hon. friend's attention to this consideration. The British Government issued an official commentary on the terms of the Covenant. That commentary was prepared * by General Smuts and Lord Robert Cecil. No two men would know better what was intended, for no two had a larger share in framing the Covenant, and they make the point I have mentioned perfectly clear in their commentary on the Covenant. So far as I am aware it has never been, questioned by any of the nations parties to the League. Now if the dispute referred to the Assembly 23
is one in which the British Empire is not a party, the various nations of the British Empire, as members of the League, have certainly the same voting rights as all other members.


Lucien Cannon: Is it not a fact that at Paris it was decided that the five great powers were always interested in questions of an international character? That is why the Council was formed, which decides practically everything. If that interpretation is to remain, would the minister mention a case of an international character in which the British Empire would not be interested?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The answer is that that is not the correct interpretation of the Covenant. In discussing the conditions of peace, the five great powers assumed*, the leadership and control. They considered themselves interested in everything, and therefore retained in their hands the final decision as to everything, but under the terms of the Covenant the great powers have no more interest in an international dispute in which they are not individually as nations involved, than have the smaller powers. They are members and no more.


Lucien Cannon: Would my hon. friend
give me an example?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Take, for instance, a dispute between China and Japan. Japan is one of the great powers. She is interested; the others are not. In that case the others would not be precluded from voting. China and Japan would be the only nations precluded from voting.


John Hampden Burnham: As regards the members of the British Empire I suppose their status is something like that contained in the Athanasian Creed-not three in one, but one in three.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is not wholly the
situation, but it may convey an idea of it to some hon. members.


William Stevens Fielding: Might not the British Empire be interested, in a given case, by reason of its alliance with Japan?


Newton Wesley Rowell: These questions as to who are and who are not interested must, I presume, be finally determined in some authoritative way, either by the Council itself or by the Court of International Justice when constituted, but the general understanding, as I have gathered from those who took part in the Conference and in framing the Covenant, as well as from all the literature on the question so far as I



have been able to peruse it is that "a party to the dispute" means that the nation itself must be involved. Let me illustrate it in another way. My hon. friend will recall that there is a proposed treaty between Great Britain, France and the United States for the defence of France against an aggressive attack by Germany. There are treaties between the United States and a number of. Central and South American States. If a treaty between two nations such as those I have referred to is held to disqualify the parties to the treaty from any participation, it would greatly limit the number of those who could vote.


William Stevens Fielding: It would depend upon
the nature of the treaty.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Quite so. One would be very foolish to express a dogmatic opinion offhand as (to what the situation would be under any particular clause of the treaty. All that one can say is that all nations would be treated alike in that respect.
May I refer for a few minutes to the International Labour Organization, because what I have to say with respect to voting rights and status will apply to both organizations. The organization provided under the Treaty is (1) an International Labour Conference, (2) the Governing Body, and (3) the International Labour Office.	-
All the members of the League, by virtue of-that membership, are members of the international labour organization. Each member is entitled to representation at the International Labour Conference by two Government delegates, and by one delegate representing the employers of the country, and one representing the employees. In this case the voting differs from the voting in the Assembly of the League. In voting in the Assembly there is only one vote per member. In the International Labour Conference all the delegates from each nation are entitled to vote. They may vote together or against each other, just as they see fit. At the International Labour Conference at Washington it was a very frequent occurrence for delegates representing the same nation to vote against each other. Particularly was that the case as between the employers' delegate and the workers' delegate on a number of questions that came up.
The question of representation in the governing body came up for consideration at the Peace Conference, and there was a direct conflict of opinion as to what should be done. In the original clause relating to

the composition of the governing body, a provision was inserted that no high contracting party together with its self-governing dominions should be entitled to more than one representative on the governing body. If that clause had remained in the Treaty it would have cut down the rights of Canada and the other self-governing dominions as full members of the organization. It would have denied them eligibility to election to the governing body, which other members of the League enjoy. That governing body was composed of twelve representatives of governments, six representatives of employers and six of employees. Eight of the government representatives were to be named by the eight nations of chief industrial importance throughout the world. The other four were to be elected by the other members of the International Labour Conference, at the meeting of that conference. As Great Britain is undoubtedly one of the eight nations of chief industrial importance, she was bound to have a representative on the governing body; and if no nation, plus its self-governing dominions, could have more than one representative on the governing body, it meant that the representative of the Empire must always be a representative of Great Britain. The Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and his colleagues took the ground that that restrictive clause should be eliminated from the covenant because it did impair the position and status of Canada and the other Dominions, and the Prime Ministers of the other Dominions shared this view. The result was that that clause was eliminated, only, however, after the greatest pressure on the part of the representatives of Canada and the other Dominions; and the treaty as finally submitted to Germany and accepted and signed by her, contained no such provision. Canada's eligibility- for election to the governing body of the International Labour Organization therefore stands in exactly the same position as her eligibility for election to the Council of the League. It is not my intention this afternoon to refer to the proceedings of the International Labour Conference at Washington, because another opportunity will arise when these matters can be more properly discussed. But I would point out, in regard to the question of status, .that at the International Labour Conference at Washington, -when the four other nations were selected-that is to say, the four which should be entitled to name the four additional members, Canada was chosen one of the four. Spain had been in the original

eight of chief industrial importance and had been crowded out by the agreement to admit Germany. Every one agreed that Spain should be elected. It was also agreed that South America, with betweeh fifteen and twenty members in the League and in the International Labour Organization, should be entitled to at least one member on the governing body, and Argentina was therefore selected. That left two places for the other countries of Europe, Asia, and America; and the House, I think, will be gratified to know that, by a vote of the representatives of nations of the world assembled in Washington, Canada was one of the two so chosen.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend will no doubt remember that prior to the creation of the League of Nations there existed in Switzerland what was known as the International Labour Office. (Different countries were entitled to send representatives to that conference each year. Is there any privilege or right which the Dominions may have to-day under the League of Nations which they had not, prior to the establishment of the League, in connection with the International Labour Office?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The two organizations
are entirely different.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the difference?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The International Labour Office in Switzerland was a purely voluntary organization, the sole purpose of which wras to promote international co-operation in matters of labour legislation and questions of interest to labour. The International Labour Organization under the provisions of the Peace Treaty, has a very important jurisdiction in dealing with labour problems and in imposing certain obligations upon the Governments concerned.


William Stevens Fielding: Has it power to enforce them?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Perhaps it would be desirable to discuss the whole question of the work of the International Labour Conference at Washington, on some other occasion when we have time to go into the entire labour situation. I shall be very glad to do so on the estimates of the Department of Labour, or when some other suitable occasion offers.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Was the United States of America represented at the Labour Conference at Washington? If it was, was it 23*
represented by virtue of the Treaty of Peace; which it has so far refused to ratify?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The United States was not officially represented at that conference. Under the terms of the Treaty, the conference was to be called by President Wilson, and he did call it, with the approval of Congress. The United States was not represented under the terms of the Treaty, but on the invitation of the Organization Committee of the Conference, and with the approval of President Wilson, Mr. Wilson, Secretary of Labour in the: government of President Wilson, accepted the position of Presiding Officer of the Conference. The Conference passed a resolution inviting representatives' of the employers and employees of the United States to be present at the conference and to take part in its discussions, and pursuant to that resolution organized labour in the United States nominated Mr. Gompers as their representative to be present at the conference. Mr. Gompers was present and did take part in the discussions, although he was present only on a limited number of occasions. Apart from that the United States was not represented at the conference.


William Daum Euler: Was it eligible for representation on the governing body?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, the United States
was not eligible for representation, and I should perhaps add, in that connection, that when it came to a question of electing the six representatives of labour on the governing body-Mr. Draper of Canada was elected as one of the number. So that at the present time Canada is represented by two members on the governing body. It is only right to say, in this connection, that Mr. Draper recognizes that if the United States comes into the International Labour Organization organized labour in the United States should be represented and Mr. Draper will make way for Mr. Gompers as head of the American Federation of Labour. That was understood among the labour delegates at the conference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has Mr. Draper any authority to bind this country in any way in regard to any action which he may take?


Newton Wesley Rowell: None whatever.


William Stevens Fielding: Then, what good comes of it?


Newton Wesley Rowell: With all deference to my hon. friend, I may say that great good comes

of it. Both the governing body and the conference deal with questions of labour affecting Canada as well as all other countries. Now, while one may have the greatest respect for the representatives of Great Britain who attend this conference, I venture to say that neither employers nor employees of Great Britain are in a position to present the viewpoint of Canadian industry or Canadian labour, and that is of great importance, when questions come up for consideration, that the Canadian viewpoint should be presented in regard to both employers and employees.


William Stevens Fielding: With what result?


Newton Wesley Rowell: With the same result as would attend the representations of any other member, so far as discussion is concerned, and with the same right to vote as any other member.


William Stevens Fielding: Without power to bind the Dominion? They have merely the right to express their private opinions.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Not only that but they
have power to take part in the proceedings.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon.
friend appears to be desirous that the Canadian point of view shall be presented to the Conference, X wish he would make clear to the House wherein Canada's status is changed from what it was under the old system whereby different countries sent representatives to an International Labour Conference. I remember having the privilege of representing the Government of Canada at one of the International Labour Conferences. I think that the powers given me then were quite as considerable as' the powers given to any representative under the League of Nations. If there is any difference I wish my hon. friend would explain it so that the House may understand wherein Canada's status is altered one way or the other.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Although I will answer
my hon. friend's question, I am not concerned in discussing how Canada's status is altered. What I am concerned with is to make clear Canada's status in the League of Nations and in the International Labour organization. I thought I had answered my hon. friend before by saying that the -two organizations were entirely different, that one was a voluntary organization without-any powers whatever except to confer and to agree if possible on certain matters submitted by their consideration. Under the labour convention the powers go beyond .that. Perhaps, in view of the question

raised I had better explain what these powers are although I had not intended doing so at this time. My hon. friend will recall that under the provisions of the labour clauses of the Peace Treaty these conferences are to be held once a year and an agenda is to be prepared of the subjects which are to come up for consideration at the conference. To illustrate, I will give you some of the questions that 5 p.m. came up at the Washington Conference. The Peace Conference in Paris settled the agenda for the Washington Conference. That agenda was as follows :
1.	Application of principle of the 8-hours day or of the 48-hours week.
2.	Question of preventing or providing against unemployment.
3.	Women's employment:
(a)	Before and after child-birth, including the question of maternity benefit;
(b)	During the night;
(c)	In unhealthy processes.
4.	Employment of children:
(a)	Minimum age of employment;
(b)	During the night;
(c)	In unhealthy processes.
5.	Extension and application of the International Conventions adopted at Berne in 1906 on the prohibition of night work for women employed in industry and the prohibition of the use of white phosphorous in the manufacture of matches.
These were the matters with which the Washington Conference had to deal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is that agenda different in any particular from the agenda of the International Labour office? It seems to be exactly the same.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The International Labour office might adopt any agenda it chose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
agenda that the International Labour office had been adopting for years.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Well, they did not
achieve results.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. That very matter of phosphorus, which is dealt with, was taken up at the conference held at Basle, Switzerland, and as a result of the convention arrived at a Bill was introduced into this House and passed. That was the proceeding under the old International Labour office. I would like my hon. friend to explain wherein this present body is going to act in any different way or wherein it has power to go beyond that?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Take the very point that my hon. friend mentions; why does it appear on this agenda?-because although

some countries may have adopted legislation as a result of the Basle conference, the convention was not adopted by all the nations represented there, and it is necessary to have further action taken. What are the powers of the labour conference. Take the eight-hour day and the forty-eight hour week. I mention this as an illustration simply because it was the one that excited the greatest interest. The conference appointed a commission, consisting of five representatives of governments, five representatives of employers and five representatives of employees. They met, considered the whole question, and finally agreed upon the terms of a draft international convention covering the question of the eight-hour day and the forty-eight hour week. I do not now ''-tend discussing these terms because I am only discussing the procedure. Upon the convention being submitted to the Conference, for the final vote, it was adopted by a two-thirds vote. Then it became an obligation on all members of the Conference, whether they approved or disapproved of the terms of the convention to sumbit the convention to the competent legislative authority in their respective countries for action. The obligation is to submit the convention for consideration and the action which is finally taken must depend upon the public opinion in the countries concerned. But it does ensure that the convention shall go before competent legislative authority in each country for consideration and action.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There can be no final, binding effect except with the approval of the parliaments of the different countries concerned?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is all and I submit that was all it was wise to do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.


Newton Wesley Rowell: They were not constituting, as some of the continental representatives desired, an international industrial or labour parliament with power to enact legislation binding all the nations of the world. They only went so far and no farther, namely, that each government should obligate itself to submit this convention to the competent legislative authority.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is exactly what was done under the old International Labour office.
* Mr. ROWELL:	All right, then; if my
hon. friend was satisfied with that, he should be entirely satisfied with this.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Under these circumstances I do not see what is to be gained by labouring the point.


William Daum Euler: Might I ask the minister
whether the necessary two-thirds vote was obtained on the eight-hour day?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It was carried by a vote of 90 to 2.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has no effect in so far as this country is concerned until the legislatures of the different provinces act upon it?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It has no effect in so far as this country is concerned until it is submitted to the competent legislative authority of this country.


William Daum Euler: The Government is under
obligation to bring in legislation on that matter?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Government is obligated to submit it to competent legislative authority. I do not want now to enter into the discussion. We will have plenty of opportunities of discussing the question of the eight-hour day and other matters and I do not think it is well to enter upon that discussion when we are dealing with other matters at this time. Now, I wish to go back to the first matter with which I was dealing and to say that in both the League of Nations and the International Labour organization Canada has the same status in the assembly and the conference as has every other member of these assemblies. Canada is also eligible for election to the council of the League and to the governing body of the international organization. In the labour organization Canada was actually elected a member of the governing body. The question of her status is not theory; it is a question of actual accomplished fact.	.
Our position and status in the League has been called in question by the reservations which have been adopted in the American Senate, and I think it is only right that I should bring the matter to the attention of the House, because it is a matter of vital concern to Canada. The reservation dealing with voting rights is generally known as the Lenroot Reservation. It is as follows:
The United States assumes no obligations to be bound by any election, decision, report, or finding of the Council or Assembly in which any member of the league and its self-governing dominions, colonies, or parts of the empire in the aggregate gives more than one vote, and

assumes no obligation to be bound by any decision, report, or finding of the Council or Assembly arising out of any dispute between the United States and any member of the League, if such member, or any self-governing Dominion, colony or part of empire united with it politically has voted.
Hon. members will see that this reservation contains two distinct proposals. First, the United States assumes no obligation to be bound by any election, decision or report in any dispute before the Council or Assembly in which any member of the League and its self-governing Dominions give more than one vote. The second part of the reservation deals with a dispute to which the United States is a party, and it states that it will not obligate itself to be bound in any such dispute if more than one vote is given by any member of the . League and any self-governing Dominions or Colonies politically united with it.
With the latter part of the reservation there is no ground of complaint, because it simply sets out what we understand to bo the effect and meaning of the Covenant as it stands. It is the first part of the reservation to which we cannot accede, because it challenges our whole position and status in the League. If the United States can claim that it is under no obligation to be bound by any decision in any dispute in which it is not a party, then all the other nations should be entitled to take the same position.
That reservation has since been somewhat modified, and as recently voted on in the Senate is in this form:
Until Part I, being the covenant of the League of Nations, shall be so amended as to provide that the United States shall be entitled-to cast a number of votes equal to that which any member of the League and its self-governing dominions, colonies, or parts of empire in the aggregate shall be entitled to cast, the-United States assumes no obligation to be bound, except in cases where Congress has previously given its consent, by any election, *decision, report, or finding of the Council or Assembly in which any member of the League and its self-governing dominions, colonies, or parts of empire in the aggregate have cast more than one vote.
In considering this reservation, Mr. Speaker, one must bear in mind the terms of the preamble, which, as originally drafted, was as follows:-
That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of the Treaty of Peace with Germany concluded at Versailles on the 28th day of June, 1919, subject to the following reservations and understandings, which are hereby made a part, and condition of this resolution of ratification, which ratification is not to take effect or bind the United States until the said reservations and understandings adopted by

the Senate have been accepted by an exchange of notes as a part and a condition of this resolution of ratification by at least three of the four Principal Allied and Associated Powers, to wit, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan.
Subsequently Mr. Lodge gave notice ol the following amended resolving clause:
That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of the Treaty of Peace with Germany concluded at Versailles on the 28th day of June, 1919, subject to the following reservations and understandings, which are hereby made a part and condition of this resolution of ratification, which ratification is not to take effect or bind the United States until the said . reservations and understandings adopted by the Senate have been accepted as a part and a condition of this resolution of ratification by the Allied and Associated Powers, and a failure on the part of the Allied and Associated Powers to make objection to said reservations and understandings prior to the deposit of ratification by the United States shall be taken as a full and final acceptance of such reservations and understandings by said Powers.
The effect of this resolving clause is that none of the reservations that may be adopted by the United States Senate, can go. into effect unless they are accepted by all the Allied and Associated Powers. And they may be accepted by the Allied and Associated Powers by the failure of any one of these Powers to dissent within the time lflentioned in the resolving clause.
If, therefore, final action, should be taken in _ the form now proposed, the question which would face every nation party to the Covenant would be: Whether they would or would not assent to the reservations proposed by the United States. If they failed to dissent their assent would be presumed. It is on that account that Canada feels that there is only one possible course open to her, namely, that if any country should say that its ratification of the Treaty was conditioned upon our assenting to our own position being impaired, our status challenged, and our right to vote denied, we as a self-respecting people could not give that consent. Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the great importance of the United States coming into the League of Nations. No country is more interested in the United States coming in than Canada. We should be the last people in the world to put any obstacle in the way of her entry. I am sure that is the sentiment of. the country and of the House. But if the United States should finally say: " We will only come in on condition that you practically get out or have your status impaired," we can only reply: ".Well, you have a perfect right to say that if you choose, but we, as a self-respecting people, have an equal right to say ihat

we cannot accede to your terms." This position the Government has made perfectly clear to the proper authorities.
What is the constitutional position of Canada in relation to the other portions of the Empire at the present time? Some hon. members have said:	"You should not
change the constitution in any respect 'without first submitting the matter to Parliament." With a written constitution you could submit to Parliament any change which required legislative sanction. But the constitution of the British Empire is not embodied in any document. It is not a dead thing; it is a living thing. It grows from day to day and from year to year; it develops to meet exigencies and new conditions- as they aiise. That has been the history of the development of the British constitution. .


Lucien Cannon: Is not our constitution
a written constitution?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We are working under
the British North America Act, but that is not the whole constitution of the British Empire.


Lucien Cannon: Have we any other?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We have very important
rights outside the British North America Act, as I shall be glad to show my hon. friend. Up to time that the British North America Act was passed in 1867 and for many years thereafter, none of the Dominions were taken into consultation by the representatives of the Mother Country in matters of common Imperial concern. The first time they were called in consultation was in 1887, twenty years after Confederation, when the first Colonial Conference was held. That was not a formal gathering such as the Imperial Conference later became, but it was attended by representatives of the different self-governing colonies of the BritistPEmpire, as they were then called. It was the initiation of co-operation between what were then called the colonies and the Mother Country on an Empirewide scale. Because of its significaflce I wish to quote a few, words from the Marquis of Salisbury, then Prime Minister of Great Britain, on the occasion of the initiation pf this movement for co-operation and consultation throughout the Empire. He said:
We all feel the gravity and importance of this occasion. The decisions of this Conference may not he, for the moment, of vital importance; the business may seem prosaic, and may not issue in any great results at the moment. But we are all sensible that this meeting is the beginning of a state of things which is to have great results in the future. It will be the parent of a long progeniture, and distant councils of the Empire may, in some far-otf time, look back to the meeting in this room as the root from which all their greatness and all their beneficence sprang.
In that historic statement the Marquis of Salisbury saw into the future. He saw that the time' would come when there would be co-operation between the Mother Country and the Dominions along lines much more important, far-reaching and significant to the future of the Empire and of the world than that which was exemplified by the preliminary meeting held in 1887.
The next important step in the development of our constitutional relations was in 1897 when the first Conference, attended by the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was held. You will remember that in the session of the Canadian Parliament in 1897 the Government decided to grant the British Preference. That could not go into effect by reason of the existence of the Belgian and German treaties, and the matter was taken up during the sessions of the Imperial Conference in 1897. Speaking from recollection, I believe that a resolution was passed at that Conference urging the Mother Country to denounce those treaties. At that Conference it was agreed by the Mother Country that the treaties should he denounced, and they were denounced accordingly. When the Right Hon. Sir Wil-fiid Laurier returned to Canada after that meeting of the Colonial Conference he stated in very clear and very vigorous language what he conceived to be the result of that development. Speaking in Montreal, Toronto, and other parts of Canada,'he declared that by the action of the British Government in denouncing these treaties Canada had become a nation and that her name was known throughout Europe and the world. The Conference of 1897 marked a great advance over the Colonial Conference of 1887.
Ten years more elapsed,


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do 1 understand the minister to say that as a result of these conferences and the fact that they a?e being held from time to time they have become part of our constitution? Suppose the British ceased to call these conferences* what would we do about it? What right have we to interfere?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is a difference between legal right and constitutional auth-

ority. There is nothing binding Great Britain to summon these conferences; we could not compel her to do so. But it has become the settled policy of the British Empire to summon these conferences; and the basis upon which they are now called is a resolution passed at the Conference of 1907, assented to by the Mother Country and all the Governments of the self-governing Dominions. It is quite true that the British Government could ignore this resolution, just as they could repeal the British North America Act. They have the legal right to do so, but they have no constitutional authority to do so, it would provoke a revolution if they exercised their legal right so far as the British North America Act is concerned. No man in the British Parliament would be insane enough to make such a suggestion.


Lucien Cannon: Does the minister contend that Great Britain has not the constitutional authority not only to amend but even to repeal the British North America Act?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I said she had the legal right, but she has no constitutional authority to do so, because she has recognized now for nearly half a century the rights and privileges given us by the British North America Act.


Lucien Cannon: Does not the British
North America Act exist simply as a law of the British Parliament?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The British Parliament
has in theory the legal right to impose taxation on Canada. That is, the constitution of the Empire has never been changed so as to take away from the Imperial Parliament, its legal right to legislate for the whole Empire. But they have no constitutional authority to legislate for Canada, they have no right to levy taxes on the self-governing Dominions. That is recognized by every statesman of the Empire; it is questioned by no one. No publicist, no man in Great Britain with any respect for his opinion, would venture to suggest that the British Parliament had any, such constitutional right.
Now, at the Colonial Conference of 1907, also attended by the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, it was decided to change the name from " Colonial Conference " to " Imperial Conference " and to give it permanent form The following is the resolution:
That it will be to the advantage of the Empire if a conference, to be called the Imperial Conference, is held every four years, at which

questions of common interest may be discussed and considered as between His Majesty's Government and His Governments of the Self-governing Dominions beyond the seas.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will be ex officio President, and the Prime Minister of the self-governing Dominions ex officio members, of the conference. The Secretary of State for the Colonies will be ex officio member of the conference and will take the chair in the absence of the president. He will arrange for such Imperial Conference after communication with the Prime Ministers of the respective Dominions.
Provision is made for a permanent secretariat, and that the conference shall meet once every five years. This resolution marked a great advance in the development of what one might describe as the constitution of the Empire. During the twenty year period from 1887 to 1907, the more or less casual meetings of the Colonial Conference for consultation had developed into a settled organization with fixed periods of meeting, and with certain defined subjects of common Imperial interest for consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. gentleman speaks of constitutional right. Would not the term "constitutional practice" be more appropriate?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am not concerned which term my hon. friend uses, because under the British constitution, constitutional practice develops into and becomes constitutional right, generates constitutional right. They become the conventions of the constitution and are just as binding, so far as the actual practice is concerned, as if we had a written constitution. It is because this constitutional practice can be developed into constitutional right, that the constitution of the Empire has proved itself so adaptable to meet all the changing needs and varying conditions which have surrounded the Empire in the course of its history.
In 1917, there was another and still more important constitutional development. In 1917 the Prime Minister of Great Britain called together the ministers of the' selfgoverning Dominions for consultation on vital matters of policy-relating to the prosecution of the war. They met as equals as Prime Ministers of the nations of the Empire! to discuss matters of common co'n-cern to the whole Empire. Great Britain recognized that with the growth in power and influence of the Dominions, the time had come when the Government of Great. Britain should frankly recognize that the Dominions had ceased to be in any sense States dependent upon the Mother Country,

and had become sister nations, standing on an equality with the Mother Country. It does not require, as I have already pointed out, any enactment of the Imperial Parliament to bring about that change; it has come about as a matter of constitutional practice. iBut certain constitutional adjustments will be necessary and provision was made for calling a constitutional conference in the future, as follows:
The Imperial War Conference are of opinion that the readjustment of the constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire is too important and intricate a subject to be dealt with during the war, and that it should form the subject of a special Imperial Conference to be summoned as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities.
They deem it their duty, however, to place on record their view that any such readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic affairs, should be based upon a full recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth, and, of India as an important portion of the same, should recognize the right of the Dominions and India to an edequate voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations, and should provide effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern, and for such necessary concerted action, founded on consultation, as the several Governments may determine.
I hold in my hand the report of the War Cabinet of the Government of Great Britain for the year 1918, and under the heading " Imperial Affairs -* on page 7, I find the following statement:
The common effort and sacrifice in the war have inevitably led to the recognition of an equality of status between the responsible Governments of the Empire. This equality has long been acknowledged in principle, and found its adequate expression in 1917 in the creation or rather the natural coming into being of an Imperial War Cabinet as an instrument for evolving a common Imperial policy in the conduct of the war. The nature of the constitutional development involved in the establishment as a permanent institution of the Imperial Cabinet system, was clearly explained by Sir Robert Borden in a speech to the Empire Parliamentary Association on the 21st of June, 1918.
The following is the ^extract from Sir Robert Borden's speech as set out in this official document of the British Government :
A very great step in the constitutional development of the Empire was taken last year by the Prime Minister when he summoned the Prime Ministers of the overseas Dominions to the Imperial War Cabinet. We meet there on terms of perfect equality. We meet there as Prime Ministers of self-governing nations. We meet there under the leadership and the presidency of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. After all, my Lord Chancellor and
Gentlemen, the British Empire, as it is at present constituted, is a very modern organization. It is perfectly true that it is built up on the development of centuries, but, as it is constituted to-day, both in territory and in organization, it is a relatively modern affair. Why, it is only 75 years since responsible government was granted to Canada. It is only little more than fifty years since the first experiment in Federal Government,-in a Federal Constitution,-was undertaken in this Empire. And from that we went on, in 1871, to representation in negotiating our Commercial Treaties, in 1878, to complete fiscal autonomy, and after that to complete fiscal control and the negotiation of our own treaties. But we have always lacked the full status of nationhood, because you exercised here a so-called trusteeship, under which you undertook to deal with foreign relations on our behalf, and sometimes without consulting us very much. Well, that day has gone by. We come here as we came last year, to deal with all these matters, upon terms of perfect equality with the Prime Minister of the Unitel Kingdom and his colleagues. It has been said that the term Imperial War Cabinet is a misnomer. The word 'Cabinet' is unknown to the law. The meaning of 'Cabinet' has developed from time to time.
I see no incongruity whatever in applying the term 'Cabinet' to the association of Prime Ministers and other ministers who meet around a common council board to debate and to determine the various needs of the Empire. If I should attempt to describe it, I should say it is a Cabinet of Governments. Every Prime Minister who sits around that board is responsible to his own parliament and to his own people; the conclusions of the War Cabinet can only be carried out by the parliaments of the different nations of our Imperial Commonwealth. Thus, each Dominion, each nation, retains its perfect autonomy. I venture to believe, and I thus expressed myself last year, that in this may be found the genesis of a development in the constitutional relation of the Empire, which will form the basis of its unity in the years to come.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So that,we may appreciate the significance of the matter, I should like to ask my hon. friend who speaks of equality of status amongst the self-governing Dominions of the Empire, whether that means that Canada's status is the same as that of Australia or South Africa.


Newton Wesley Rowell: And New Zealand?
Mr.	MACKENZIE	KING:	What	about
India?


Newton Wesley Rowell: And of the United Kingdom. India's position is not the same.
Mr.	MACKENZIE	KING:	In what way
does it differ?	*
Mr.	ROWELL:	Because	India,	as a
nation, is not completely self-governing.
Mr.	MACKENZIE	KING:	What	about
Newfoundland?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Newfoundland is completely Self-governing and under the terms of the covenant of the League of Nations, Newfoundland will be entitled to apply for admission to the League.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is not India given a place?


Newton Wesley Rowell: India is given a place by the Peace Conference itself. Therefore, her status cannot be challenged; but it is by virtue of the place given her in the League by the Peace Conference that she acquires her rights.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it not correct that in the League of Nations Canada's status is not different from that of India?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Canada's status is not different from that of the other members of the League. Once they are members of the League by international recognition and consent, as embodied in the Treaty, they have the same rights.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I understand the minister correctly, he informs the House now that Canada's status as regards the League of Nations is identical with that of India.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, I did not say so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But is not that true?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Once a nation is in the League, then under the terms of the League Covenant, it possesses all the - rights of membership; but if India had not been admitted by unanimous consent by delegates at the Peace Conference, she would not be entitled to admission under the terms of the Covenant and Canada would. If Canada had not been named in the Treaty Canada would be eligible for membership under the provision for admission of new States. India would not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I get this perfectly clear? At the present time has Canada in the League of Nations any rights or privileges which India has not?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Surely I cannot make myself any clearer that every member cf the League of Natiops has the same rights.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then they have the same rights and privileges.


Newton Wesley Rowell: India, by special agreement of all the nations, has been given the same right in the League as France, Great Britain, the United States, every other nation.
I presume that the reason why India has been given this exceptional treatment is because of the size of India-a nation of 300 millions-secondly, because of the part India took in the war, the magnificent contribution her troops made to the war, particularly in the East; thirdly, by reason of the fact that at that time there was before the Imperial House of Commons a proposal which has since become law under which India, in some important respects at least, obtains the right to manage her own affairs-the greatest experiment in the devolution of power from the Crown to the people which Great Britain has ever undertaken. By reason of these exceptional conditions a special case was made of India, and she was admitted as a member of the League; but, as I said, if she had not been admitted she would not have been qualified for membership under the terms and conditions on which new members can be admitted. Canada is qualified; Canada comes within the qualifications. If she had not been named in the Covenant, she would have been entitled to apply for admission, and should have been admitted. Therefore, their status is not the same.


Lucien Cannon: The minister has mentioned the Imperial War Cabinet. Is it his opinion that under our constitution there can be a cabinet without a Parliament to which that cabinet is responsible?


Newton Wesley Rowell: As that point is discussed in the extract from the speech of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) I do not think it is necessary for me to take up the time of the House to deal with it now. My hon. friend will be able to read the extract in Hansard.
I have pointed out the status which the Dominions have under the treaty. I want also to point out that the position the Government of Canada has taken on this matter is fully supported by the Governments of the other Dominions. I have before me the debate in the South African Assembly on the Peace Treaty and the statement. of General Smuts. It is exactly to the same effect as the statement made by the Prime Minister and members of the Government to this House, namely, that the British Empire had become a commonwealth of nations, equal under a common sovereign. It is interesting to note that the objections made in the South African Parliament by Mr. Hertzog and his Nationalist associates were almost the same as those made in this Parliament, and the reply of General Urnuts to the criticism of the treaty is sub'-iantially

on the same lines as the reply of the Government to criticism of the treaty here. In view of the position of General Smuts as a great constitutional lawyer, and of the part he took in framing the Covenant of the League of Nations, and also as the Prime Minister of one of the other dominions of the Empire, I am sure hon. members would like to have his statement upon Hansard.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The remarks I made a moment ago apply also to this document. It can only be put upon Hansard with the unanimous consent of the House.


Newton Wesley Rowell: In moving the resolution to approve the treaty, General Smuts said:
The hon. gentleman who argued the previous motion last asked the question why there should be ratification by us, seeing that the British Parliament has already ratified this? He asked why we should trouble ourselves about this at all. Was it necessary for us, he asked, or was this merely a sham to putr before His Majesty the King. Hon. members by arguing that way only show that they do not know what the constitutional position is to-day. We have nothing to do with the ratification by the British Parliament. We signed this Treaty in Paris through the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence but His Majesty the King wishes the authority of the Union Parliament to ratify this. The King is not going to be influenced by the ratification given by the British House of Commons, and therefore the position is this, that until we have given the ratification which is necessary, until all the British Dominions who have signed this have agreed to this, ratification, we are, so far as the British Empire is concerned, hanging up this final exchange which is necessary before this Treaty is brought into force	
I remember when the report of our National Convention was made I made the statement that the most important thing about that document was the list of signatures at the end of it. And it is very much the same in regard to the Peace Treaty. For the first time in history the British Dominions signed a great international instrument, not only along with the other ministers of the King, but with the other ministers of the great powers of the world-(Hear, hear) -and although the tremendous importance of this great act has not yet been fully recognized there is no doubt that this Treaty, signed as it lias been with parties to it not only representative of the King in the British Isles, but in the Dominions, forms one of the most important landmarks in the history of the British Empire. .	.	. The British Dominions did not
fight for status. They went to war from a sense of duty, from their common interests with the rest of the world, vindicating the great principles of free human government. Not only has victory been achieved for the objects for which they fought, but, what for the British Dominions is equally precious, they have achieved international recognition of their status among the nations of the world. In a large sense this world is one of small nations, and certainly none of those had had larger results accruing to them from this war than the young nations of the British Empire. They have deserved this through the magnitude of their efforts. It has been proved and has never been challenged that
two of the British Dominions-Canada and Australia-made a greater war effort than any other powers below the rank of first-class powers. Their achievements have been outstanding ones. Australia alone lost more than the U.S.A. They have, of course, lost heavily; they are handicapped with enormous debt, but they have at any rate emerged with victory, honour, and a new standing in the world in that they are internationally recognized to-day. No wonder after what they have done that their great performance all through the war, and especially towards the end of it the other powers and nations of the world were only too willing to welcome and recognize them within the new great family. It took some time for the position to be realized at Paris, because so many of the powers were under the same impression which, according to the debate in the House that afternoon, appeared to exist in South Africa, viz., that everything seemed to be under tutelage of the British Parliament and Government. They could not realize the new situation arising, and that the British Empire, instead of being one central government, consisted of a league of free states, free, equal and working together for the great ideals of human government. It was difficult to make people realize this, but afterwards they fully applauded, and their approval was given as embodied in this international document. No doubt new forms would have to be made. No one recognized this more strongly than the British Government itself, but. whatever the forms, there was no doubt whatever about the substance of the new status of the Dominions.
There is the other aspect-the recognition which is thereby given to British Dominions in the League. The British Dominions are equal members, both in the Assembly and also with a. full right to be elected into the Council of the League. The Council consists of five great powers now, together with the representatives of four smaller powers, and among the latter which have to be elected on the Council of the League the British Dominions have the same right as any other power to be elected. I see in the American .Senate some difficulty has arisen about that, and they think that it is giving too large a vote to the British Empire. There is no doubt that there are British Dominions important enough in the near future to secure a seat on the Inner Council, and I can well understand that in other parts of the world this enormous preponderance which the British Empire will enjoy, and which may be accentuated, is not looked upon with very great favour. This matter of our status in the League of Nations was not one of the original conceptions of it. It took the British delegation at Paris a good deal of time to hammer out this new machinery for the recognition of young nations. The Dominions felt very strongly that here was their chance, and that if there was to be a League of Nations on which the nations were to be equally represented, then that League should include the British Dominions. We were determined to see that that recognition was given to us, but we were equally anxious to see that nothing was done which would loosen the ties which bind together the British Empire . (Cheers.) We kept both these things clearly before our eyes. iStill, we wanted our equality with the rest of the world recognized. We also wanted to remain in the British League of Nations, which has worked with such enormous success in the past-(cheers)-and has worked together in this war, probably becoming the real organizer of victory for all the Allies and the rest of the world. (Cheers.)

Fears have been expressed in, certain quarters, and fears have been given expressiion to in South Africa, that the ultimate tendency of the League of Nations would be to break up the British Empire, but that is an entirely misleading idea. On the contrary, I can well imagine great dominions arising which may be as important as Great Britain in the world, and if that motion had been dropped there would have been a danger of the breaking up of the British Empire. We have secured an inner League, and the world has agreed to it.
In his speech in reply on the resolution General Smuts stated:
As regards the question of status, General Smuts said that until last year British ministers had signed all documents and dealt with all matters affecting the Dominions. But a change had come about in Paris, when representatives of the Dominions had, on behalf of the King, for the first time signed that great document on behalf of the Dominions. The change was that in future the representatives of the Dominions would act for the Dominions. This precedent had now been laid down for the future. The British Constitution was most elastic, and the precedent might bring about the greatest changes. Where in the past British ministers could have acted for the Dominions, in future ministers of the Union would act for the Union. The change was a far-reaching one which would alter the whole basis of the British Empire. In future all parts of the British Empire stood on exactly the same basis. (General Hertzog: In the past you would have been put in prison for saying that.)
There was no misconception among British statesmen as to what the position was, and it was on that basis that matters had been agreed to in Paris	 The Dominions of the Empire would in future, therefore, stand on a basis of absolute equality. The British Empire would, therefore, be a league in which all the Dominions would be on an equal basis as regarded their Governments. The Prime Minister repeated that in the League of Nations, all the Dominions, with England, would stand on an equal footing, and would be recognized as such. The only difference would be that England would be a permanent member of the Central Council. Therefore, in future all parts of the Empire would equally be consulted in matters of war and peace:
I shall not take up the time of the House to quote Mr. Hughes or Mr. Massey, who took exactly the same position. Not only is that the position taken by the statesmen of the self-governing Dominions, but it is the position taken by the Government of Great Britain itself in reference to the effect of the Treaty of Peace. I have the statement of Lord Milner, Secretary of State for the Colonies made in an official statement issued by the Government of Great Britain, I shall be glad if it can be put upon Hansard.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must again draw the attention of the House to the fact that it is most unusual to incorporate in Hansard any document that has not been read in the House, but in view of the importance of

this document, I take it that the House consents to its being incorporated in Hansard.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Lord Milner's statement
is as follows:
The Peace Treaty recently made in Paris was signed on behalf of the British Empire by ministers of the self-governing Dominions as well as by British ministers. They were all equally plenipotentiaries of His Majesty the King, who was the "High Contracting Party" for the whole Empire.
This procedure illustrates the new constitution of the Empire, which has been gradually growing up for many years past. The United Kingdom and the Dominions are partner nations ; not yet, indeed, of equal power, but for good and all of equal status. A time may come when one or more of these Dominions will equal or even surpass the United Kingdom in wealth and population, as they already surpass it in geographical extent. It is the paramount duty of British statesmanship to see to it that the free union between them and us, which has been so gloriously maintained during the war, shall be continued and strengthened in the years to come. If we are successful in that effort, the "Commonwealth of British Nations" will be the greatest instrument of peace and progress, the strongest influence making for freedom and civilization that the world has ever seen.


MAINTAINING WAR UNITY.
[Stage Direction]
During the war unity of policy between the self-governing states of the Empire was maintained by means of the "Imperial War Cabinet," and during the peace negotiations in Paris by the "British Empire delegation." In both these bodies Dominion ministers and British ministers sat and deliberated freely together, under the presidency of the British Prime Minister, and the policy of the Empire was thus shaped by consultation between. representatives of all its self-governing states.

[Stage Direction]
We have still to devise the means whereby this fruitful co-operation may be preserved in future, and the several independent nations of the Empire may always consult and act together on great international issues. The surest guarantee that such means will be found lies in a growing intimacy of intercourse between them. To foster that intimacy, to strengthen all the moral and material bonds which unite the different parts of the Empire, is a task to which we must constantly apply ourselves with the utmost energy. It is rendered easier by the progress of science, by inventions such as wireless telegraphy, the airship, and the aeroplane, which tend to annihilate distance. The encouragement of trade within the [DOT] Empire, of migration within the Empire, the progressive improvement of means of communication by sea and air, are the methods by which we must seek to strengthen that community of interest and of sentiment, which is the only sure foundation of Imperial unity.
I have quoted these statements to show that there is complete unanimity between the Government of Great Britain and the governments of the Dominions as to the

constitutional status of the different nations of the Empire. It is not a question of conflict of opinion or authority. All are agreed that the status is one of equality, that we are nations all equal in status, though not of equal power, under a common sovereign, and bound together by interest and sentiment, by ties which, though light as air, are strong as iron in binding together this League of Nations which we call the British Empire or the Britannic Commonwealth.
It goes without saying that there must be some constitutional readjustments in order to put into more practical and workable form the new situation that has developed, and it was in order that that might be done that provision was made in the year 1917 for the calling of a special Imperial Conference. When that conference is held-we do not know yet when it will be called-these questions must come up for consideration, and the representatives of Canada and the other dominions will attend, not as representatives of inferior or dependent nations, but as representatives of nations which by unanimous agreement are equal in status with the Mother Country. Canada's representatives will attend the conference, not for the purpose of creating any new Imperial organization, but for the purpose of developing a system of consultation and co-operation which will absolutely preserve the autonomy of the' dominions, and at the same time enable matters in which the dominions are vitally concerned to receive that attention and consideration by the dominions which, under the existing system, it is not possible to give them. I am sure all citizens of Canada desire to see this result secured.
What are the alternatives we must face if our position in the 'League could be Successfully challenged? We may go back into the old colonial position where the Mother Country would deal with all matters of foreign policy and settle for us the issues of peace and war, matters in which we are vitally interested. That, to my mind, is unthinkable. It is incredible that a young nation like Canada, with the achievements of this war to her credit and with the future opening before her, will ever consent to occupy a dependent position with reference to any country.
Then, Mr. Speaker, what is the other alternative? If we cannot stand on an equality within the Empire, the other alternative is Canadian independence. I say-and in this I voice the sentiment of the Government-that we stand unhesitatingly and unequivocally for the maintenance of the British connection.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why does my hon. friend limit that position to the Government? Why not say this Parliament?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I believe that is the position of this Parliament; I did not wish to convey any inference that any one differed. If we do not proceed along the line of equality of status and co-operation under a common sovereign, I submit that there are just two alternatives: Either dependency, with Great Britain controlling our foreign policy and the issues of peace or war, or independence, and we will not accept either alternative. If the reservation I have read, or anything similar in character, should be adopted finally by the Senate and approved by the President, and if it is stipulated as a condition of the ratification going into effect, that all the Allied Powers, parties to the Treaty, shall give their consent, and Canada gives her consent, she is relegated back into a colonial position and has not a voice and a vote among the nations of the world. That position is unthinkable; and we must, if we are to preserve our position and status and the unity of the British Empire, maintain our place in the family of nations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the hon. member say that any action of the United States could alter the status of this country in the League of Nations?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Not unless we consent. If they submit as a condition of their ratification going into effect that we must consent, then the Government will not consent. In the exercise of our sovereign right to control our own affairs, we will not give our consent; hence the importance of Parliament standing behind the Government of Canada on this issue. Desiring, as we do, that there should be no misunderstanding, we thought the best way to avoid misunderstanding was to make our position clear, and this we have done to the proper authorities.


Mr.   GANNON@: Suppose Great Britain
should accept these reservations, what would be our position?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not believe Great Britain would accept these reservations as against Canada's protest.


Lucien Cannon: But supposing she did?
Mr, ROWELL: If Great Britain did and Panada dissented, as she would do, by filing her dissent, the ratification could not go into effect, because it would not be assented to by all the Allied and Associated Powers.
36G


William Stevens Fielding: Even though assented to by Great Britain? Does, my hon. friend claim that the failure of Canada to assent to the reservations would put an end to the whole treaty?


Newton Wesley Rowell: If the United States insisted on its resolving words, it would put an end to the ratification, because Great Britain has no right to give consent on behalf of Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: Great Britain is a party to the Treaty distinct from Canada. For the purposes of this discussion, Great Britain and Canada are separate nations. The hon. member has ashed what would be the effect of Great Britain assenting to the reservations. Surely the effect would be that Great Britain would remain in the League while Canada vvould leave it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That would not be the
effect, because Canada is in the League. The League has become effective by the ratification of the treaty and by its formal inauguration, and Canada cannot be put out except by her own consent. And even though the situation in Europe might be such as to influence Great Britain to give her consent, if Canada did not assent, ratification could not go into effect. -


William Stevens Fielding: On the part of Canada?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The hon. member has
missed the terms of the resolving clause which I have read. The United States might change its resolving clause so as to accept less than the assent of all the Allied and Associated Powers. Thus far it has not done &o. The resolving clause as it stands at present requires the assent of all the Allied and Associated Powers, and if Canada did not assent ratification could not go into effect.


William Stevens Fielding: And the whole treaty would be abortive?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The treaty is in force today. The League of Nations is functioning and is carrying on its work to-day.


William Stevens Fielding: The treaty would cease to be effective as regards Canada if she refused to ratify it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not wish to be at cross purposes with my hon. friend. I am sure, he is only anxious to arrive at the truth, and that is also my desire. Let me go back a step. The treaty is in force by the deposit, of ratification, on January 10, by more than three of the great powers and by ^Germany. Under the express terms of

the treaty it becomes effective on the deposit of these ratifications. The treaty going into effect brings the League of Nations into existence. The League was duly organized on January 16 and is operative today. Canada is one of its original members and has all the rights and privileges of every other member of the League. We have every respect for the opinion of the United States, they are entitled to say whether they will or will not come in, but they are not entitled to push us out without our consent, and we cannot be put out otherwise. This is the situation, and it is therefore not a question of our dropping out of the League, for we are already in it. If the United States adopted this clause the misfortune would be that they would come into the League because they had imposed a condition which could not be complied with.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not say that Great Britain will or should accept the reservations. I do not for a moment take that position; but if Great Britain should assent to the Lenroot reservations what would be our position under the treaty?


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friend will turn to the treaty he will see that the contracting party, so far as Canada is concerned, is the British Empire by its representative, His Majesty The King. The British Empire is composed of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, etc., and no one nation of that group has the right to give assent for all. The British Empire's assent, having regard to the constitutional practice that has developed, and in view of our acknowledged status cannot be given without our consent.


William Stevens Fielding: That is very debatable.


Newton Wesley Rowell: In order to avoid argument I read from the statement issued by the British Government itself to the British Parliament (the War Cabinet in part) defining our status. Now, when they made that statement, not only to us but to the British Parliament and to all the Dominions, how can it be contended that the Government of Great Britain could give an assent which would bind Canada even although Canada opposed such assent.


William Stevens Fielding: It is not a question whether they could, but would they?
Mr: ROWELL: I do not for a moment think that they would give an assent that would bind Canada. I feel absolutely con-

fident that I am speaking well within the mark when I say that the British Government would not think of doing such a thing. No public man in Great Britain would entertain such an idea.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the point of my hon. friend's remarks in regard to the United States?


Newton Wesley Rowell: What I deSire to point out, so that the House will appreciate the position, is the fact that should the United States adopt the resolutions now before the Senate, and should the President give his approval, a situation would arise in which the question of the United States coming into the League or not might depend on the action of Canada. It would be a grave responsibility for us, in the face of the serious conditions in Europe and elsewhere, to say that we would not give the necessary consent. But because we -believe, Mr. Speaker, that the question goes to the very basis of Canada's national position, and that her future depends upon it, we could not possibly give that consent.
I have felt it desirable to put the House in the possession of all the facts and I am sure we have the unanimous support of the House in maintaining Canada's status in the League of Nations. The adoption of this resolution by the House will be an intimation to the Government that the House approves the position taken by the Government on this matter of such grave importance to Canada.
The position won for Canada by her soldiers on the field of battle, maintained by her statesmen at the Peace Conference, recognized and established by the ratification of the Treaty of Peace, and the formal inauguration of the League the Government of Canada will maintain. Mr. Speaker, I move the adoption of the resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that this stands for discussion.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I will move that the debate be adjourned.
Motion (Mr. Rowell) agreed to and debate adjourned.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. REPORT TABLED.
Report of the Royal Commission on Racetrack Meetings and Betting.-Hon. C. J. Doherty.


A NATIONAL EIGHT-HOUR WORKING DAY.
[Stage Direction]
Resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed Resolution of Mr. Burnham:
That in the opinion of this House', it is desirable that to the extent of the jurisdiction of this Parliament a national eight-hour working1 day should be established immediately, subject only to the right of express private contract.
Henry Arthur Mackie: Mr. Speaker, last night when six o'clock was called I was in the act of pointing out to the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) that the existence of shorter hours of labour did not by any means imply a reduction in production, and I was reading a passage from an authority already cited. I desire, Mr. Speaker, to continue the citation.
The last sentence which I gave to the House last night was this:
-that where the human element enter's into production, hour reductions by no means necessarily imply a decrease in output. For instance, the Federal Industrial Commission of 189S made special comparisons between the output of the bituminous coal mines before and after the introduction of the eight-hour day, and found that output even increased under the shorter work day. In Illinois in 1895 and 1896 under the ten-hour system, the average daily output for each mine employee was 2.53 to 3 tons; in 1598, 1899, and 1900, with an eight-hour day, the average output was 3.11 and 3.21 tons, though the proportion of coal mined by machinery was not increased.
In the New England textile industry, also, it was found that the shorter work day consequent upon the enforcement of the ten-hour law improved either the quality or quantity of the output, or both. Similar evidence has been gathered for a number of other industries, showing the beneficial effect of a full day's rest each week. This increase of output through increased efficiency probably largely explains why wages have seldom fallen, but have frequently even risen after a reduction of hours, and why the industries in which wages are highest are often those in which hours are shortest. Practical experience, therefore, gives weight to the old eight-hour league slogan: "Whether you work by the piece or the day, decreasing the hours increases the pay."
Now the principal objection to long hours of labour is that they tend to the breakdown of health, and again I desire to quote the authority in hand, because the mere assertion by one hon. member that a certain condition exists, and the mere contradiction of that assertion by another hon. member, is not going to get us any further with the subject. There is only one way to deal with it, and that is through the investigations which (have been made regarding labour conditions. This authority states:
Under modern industrial conditions such excessive hours of work break down health. Even with short hours the strain of modern industry.

Commons
tation by all these societies and trades unions brought about a general recognition of womenkind in United States.
In Canada very little has been done to improve the condition of the *working woman. In connection with the resolution before the House the conditions as affecting women must be taken into account. The only case in which I have been able to find that action was taken in Canada touching the matter of working hours for women was the appointment of a Royal Commission at Toronto in 1907 to inquire into a dispute between the Bell Telephone Company and its operators. There evidence was given by physicians who declared that if the health of the workers was to be preserved the working day should not be longer than six hours spread over a period of eight hours. So that any legislation which is put on the statute book of this country with regard to the hours of labour must necessarily take into account the conditions under which women work.
Of course, it does not follow that because in some cases women demand a working day of six hours or even eight hours there are not employments in connection with which the hours may be extended over longer periods without impairment of health or safety of the employees.
So far as legislation affecting men is concerned, very little is to be found in United States or in Europe dealing with the matter of hours. The only data that I can find relating to the hours that men should work are in relation to such employments as transportation, street railways, mines and work done under great pressure of air. Representations have been made from time - to time to Federal Governments relating to the hours of men on the ground that the State itself is responsible as one of the parties to the contract, but little has been accomplished.
So far as transportation companies are concerned, the labourers themselves are responsible to some extent for what they have obtained. On the other hand, corporations are quite ready to recognize the demands of the labourers, for the simple reason that in many cases an army of men is involved, and it is expedient for the corporations themselves to have the good-will and cooperation of the labourers. Take the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. They have never had any trouble so far as hours of labour are concerned because their employees constitute an army of three hundred thousand men or more, and it is of vital importance to Canada that there
[.Mr. H. A. Mackie]
should be no tie-up in the work which these men are doing. The company has, therefore, established what is known as a system of runs, so that a man may not necessarily have to work much more than eight hours at a time; and at the end of his run he has an opportunity for rest, enjoyment and repose.
In the matter of mines and tunnels the Provincial legislatures all over the Dominion have passed laws with regard to conditions of labour, it being apparent that these were necessary to the protection of human life. There are, however, cases where a day of even eight hours is too long, and in that respect I wish to quote a number of cases where employment is limited to only one and one-half hours:
The beginning's of such adjustment are, however, to be seen in the laws of New York and New Jersey governing work in compressed air. Under both of these statutes not only are daily working hours regulated by the degree of pressure under which the work is done, but they are divided into two equal periods, the rest interval between which also varies according to the pressure as follows:
If the	But does	Number of	Interval betweenpressure	not	hours' work	workingexceeds:	exceed:	in 24 :	periods :Normal	21 pounds	8 hours	h hour21 pounds	30 "	6 "	1 "30 "	35 "	4 "	2 "35 "	40 "	3 " .	3 "40 "	45 "	2 "	4 "45 "	50 "	n "	5 "So that	when this	matter is to	be taken
into consideration, this Parliament must go into details as to what is the class of work to be performed. Even a universal law providing for an eight-hour day is not going to meet the whole situation in the Dominion of Canada. There is something else besides the consideration of hours; there is also the question of rest at meal time. The labourer should be given all the time necessary and a reasonable rest at mid-day. There is the further consideration of night work. In that respect all authorities agree that night work brings forth neither the quality nor the quantity, and that as regards women and children it is, in many respects, an occasion of danger.
In dealing further with this resolution, the House should take into consideration the question of holidays. As regards Canada, I do not think there is any difficulty now, because both municipalities and provinces have seen, I believe, that the labouring classes get a half day a week at all events; but authorities who have given this matter a great deal of study, claim that the holidays should be increased for

the labouring man and that provision should be made for absence yearly with full pay.
The Labour Conference which was held at Washington took up this question and approved what the authority that I have placed before the House says, because provision has been made in that report to define what is industrial undertaking in one class of work and what is industrial undertaking in another; makes provision for extra long hours in cases of accident or accident being apprehended and also deals with a certain number of cases where the Government is supreme. IE the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) intends to deal with that Conference at Washington,
I shall not take up the time of the House in reading some of the provisions dealing with questions of labour. If the hon. gentleman will say that he will deal with that, I shall leave the matter alone.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think my hon. friend
had better continue his speech, and anything he covers, I need not repeat, if I find it necessary to say anything later on.


Henry Arthur Mackie: There are, therefore, reksons why this Government should take into consideration legislation along those lines, first because the constitutional question has been dealt with, as I am informed through the medium of the press, and because the International Conference at Washington shows that it is the business of federal authorities to deal with such matters. There was adopted at Washington the following draft dealing with the question of the Treaty of Versailles of 28th June, 1919, and the Treaty of St. Germain of 10th September, 1919:
Article 1.
For the purpose of this Convention, the term Industrial undertaking includes particularly:
(a)	Mines, quarries and other works for the extraction of minerals from the earth.
(b)	Industries in which articles are manufactured, altered, cleaned, repaired, ornamented, finished, adapted for sale, broken up or demolished, or in which materials are transformed, including shipbuilding and the generation, transformation and transmission of electricity or motive power of any kind.
(c)	Construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair, alteration, or demolition of any building, railway, tramway, harbour, dock, pier, canal, inland waterway, road, tunnel, bridge, viaduct, sewer, drain, well, telegraphic or telephonic installation, electrical undertaking, gas work, waterwork, or other work of construction, as well as the preparation for or laying the foundation of any such work or structure.
(d)	Transport of passengers or goods by road, rail, sea or inland waterway, including the handling of goods at docks, quays, wharves or warehouses, but excluding transport by hand.
24i
The provisions relative to transport by sea and on inland waterways shall be determined by a special conference dealing with employment at sea and on inland waterways.
The competent authority in each country shall define the line of division which separates industry from commerce and agriculture.
This is a very important point in that there is a good deal of apprehension throughout the country that the effect of the declaration .of an eight-hour day will be to infringe upon the rights of the farmer to make private contracts with labourers. Any legislation that is to be passed by this Dominion must be legislation in accord with the principles laid down in this concention and in accord with the principles enunciated in the Treaty of Peace and League of Nations:
Art cle 2.
The working hours of persons employed in any public or private industrial undertaking or in any branch thereof, other than an undertaking in which only members of the same family are employed, shall not exceed eight in the day and forty-eight in the week, -with the exceptions hereinafter provided for.
(a)	The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to persons holding positions of supervision or management, nor to persons employed in a confidential capacity.
(b)	Where by law, custom, or agreement between employers and workers' organizations, or, where no such organizations exist between employers' and workers' representatives, the hours of work on one or more days of the week are less than eight, the limit of eight hours may be exceeded on the remaining days of the week by the sanction of the competent public authority, or by agreement between such organizations or representatives; provided, however, that in no case under the provisions of this paragraph shall the daily limit of eight hours be exceeded by more than one hour.
(c)	Where persons are employed in shifts it shall he permissible to employ persons in excess of eight hours in any one day and forty-eight hours in any one week, if the average number of hours over a period of three weeks or less does not exceed eight per day and forty-eight per week.
Therefore provision must be made in any Federal Act that may be passed for cases where a man may work the maximum of week hours and still not necessarily put in eight hours every day of that week.


ARTICLE 3.
[Stage Direction]
The limit of hours of work prescribed in Article 2 may be exceeded in case of accident, actual or threatened, or in case of urgent work to be done to machinery or plant, or in case of ''force majeure," but only so far as may he necessary to avoid serious interference with the ordinary working of the undertaking.

[Stage Direction]
The limit of hours of work prescribed in Article 2 may also be exceeded in those processes which are required by reason of the nature of the process to be carried on continuously by a succession of shifts, subject to the condition that the working hours shall not
[Stage Direction]
exceed fifty-six in the week on the average. Such regulation of the hours of work shall in no case affect any rest days which may be secured by the national law to the workers in such processes in compensation for the weekly rest day.

[Stage Direction]
In exceptional cases where it is recognized that the provisions of Article 2 cannot be applied, but only in. such cases, agreements between workers' and employers' organizations concerning the daily limit of work over a longer period of time, may be given the force of regulations, if the Government, to which these agreements shall be submitted, so decides. The average number of hours worked per week, over the number of weeks covered by any such agreement, shall not exceed forty-eight.

[Stage Direction]
Regulations made by public authority shall determine for industrial undertakings:
(a)	The permanent exceptions that may be "* allowed in preparatory or complementary work
which must necessarily be carried on outside the limits laid down for the general working of an establishment, or for certain classes of workers whose work is essentially intermittent
(b)	The temporary exceptions that may be allowed, so that establishments may deal with exceptional cases of pressure of work.
These regulations shall be made only after consultation with the organizations of employers and workers concerned, if any such organizations exist. These regulations shall fix the maximum of additional hours in each instance, and the rate of pay for overtime shall not be less than one and one-quarter times the regular rate.
An eight-hour day law cannot be passed so summarily as all this. Exceptions must be provided to cover cases where the eight hours may be exceeded. Labour must also be consulted. The International Labour Conference which sat in Washington passed a resolution declaring that before any law was passed relating to labour, or to questions of hours and wages in this or any other country, the labour organizations must be consulted. I believe that is the proper thing to do.
A great deal was said at the International Labour Conference in Washington regarding the question of unemployment. If we are going to deal with the question of hours, which involves the question of wages, we might as well deal also with unemployment and social insurance. I shall not discuss those questions to-night, but the Bill [DOT]ought to deal with them, because these questions are all related to one another.
Before sitting down I should like to draw attention to the resolution itself. I am in favour of the eight-hour day, and to that extent I support the resolution, but the resolution in effect means this: That we should declare it desirable, to the extent of the jurisdiction of this Parliament to have a national eight-hour day established im-

mediately, subject only to the right of express private contract. What is the use of making such a declaration and pass a statute when we leave it open for a telephone operator, for instance, to come along and say to her employer: You are not prohibited from making a contract with me under which I shall be obliged to work sixteen hours a day. If the State is concerned with the welfare of women, and that it is so concerned is evident from' what I have read to you this evening, is it not absolute folly to ask us to put on the statute books of this country a declaration that we have a national eight-hour day, when the principle of that law can be contravened at any time by employer and employee if they choose? If we are going to deal with this question of the eight-hour day at all, it must be from the point of view of the necessity of protecting the individual, whether man, Woman or child, from engaging in a longer working day than eight hours. It may be necessary to legislate that the working hours in some cases should be limited to six or -even four hours a day, but it should not be permitted to an employer to contravene the law by entering into a private contract with his employees. Otherwise, the legislation would stand merely as a farce, and have no force or sanction behind it. A law that merely, says that such and such a'thing shall be established, that provides no penalties for its enforcement, that can be contravened at the will of employer or employee, would not meet the conditions at all. I believe that the resolution as drawn up is weak and futile and does not meet the case. It should be amended for the purpose of meeting the actual conditions as they exist in Canada, so as to come to the relief of the labouring men, or it should not be dealt with at all. In any event, I would hesitate to say that I would support any measure dealing with this question, affecting as it would the whole of Canada, unless the labour organizations are first consulted, because they are familiar with conditions that actually exist and as to which we have very little information.
In conclusion, I wish to say a few words on the attitude of our capitalists and manufacturers. Shortly after the English labour platform was issued, there was such a fear on the part of manufacturers in the Dominion of Canada that they immediately formed a committee composed of the principal manufacturers in the city of Montreal and district to consider what steps should be taken. That committee issued circulars -to all members of Parliament, I believe, and

to all those they thought they could possibly influence, dealing with such questions as co-operation and various other phases of reconstruction that were being much discussed at that time, leading us to believe they were very anxious to do everything they could for labour. They even intimated in their pamphlets and circulars that in some cases labour had not been properly treated. What has beoome of these gentlemen? Nothing has been done. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), then a member of the Cabinet, was chairman of a committee dealing with labour conditions throughout the Dominion, but so far as I know no report was ever made to this House. The Government must have secured data from various sources dealing with conditions throughout the Dominion, but I have not been able to secure any report.
I would point out that there is a great deal to be done by the manfacturers themselves. It is not by legislation alone that you can bring about remedies. There is always some way of evading the law, always some loophole, always something that has not been provided for. The courts might not be in sympathy with the legislation, and very often the labouring classes are not in a position to carry cases to higher courts. What we need in this country is a readjustment of the relations between capital and labour. There must be some disposition on the part of the employers to treat their employees properly, and once they have this disposition the same good relations will prevail between employer and employee in every other industry as prevail in the railway world. You see very few strikes or labour difficulties on the .Canadian Pacific railway. Why is it not possible for other employers of labour to obtain the good will of their employees in the same way? It is not by legislation alone that we can have a perfect understanding between these two forces, And II exhort the men who, at the beginning of the reconstruction period, were issuing pamphlets and letters all over Canada admitting their own shortcomings and promising to do better for labour, to proceed immediately to fulfil those promises. If they do, the necessity for legislation will be dispensed with in a large measure. In any case, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that the resolution as drawn would be null and void as regards any effect which it might have if it were law. I think that a committee should be appointed to consider the matter so that a proper act might be
brought in which would take into consideration all classes of labour in the country under all conditions.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has been intimated that an
opportunity will be given later in the session for the discussion of the question of an eight-hour day, and I shall not take up much time this evening trying to consider the merits of that question on this resolution. My purpose is rather to point out that in dealing with industrial questions it is of the greatest importance that the meanihg of a resolution such as this should be made perfectly clear. Anything either misleading or uncertain in the note sounded by Parliament as to what it projroses to do in regard to this great problem cannot work other than injury to the relations between capital, labour, and the community. This resolution may mean very much or it may mean nothing at all and I desire simply toi ascertain its real significance.
My hon. friend who has just resumed his seat (Mr. H. A. Mackie) points out that the resolution concludes with the words, "Subject only to the right of express private contract." In other words, we are asked to enact an eight-hour day law, with the understanding that individuals notwithstanding shall have the right to enter into express private contracts in the matter of hours. I trust that the mover of the resolution will correct me if I am wrong, but I gather that the meaning of these words is that any individual who employs another may make a contract with him as to his hours of labour on any terms upon which the two are agreed. If that is not the meaning of the words I shall be obliged if the hon. member will make the position clear.


John Hampden Burnham: The resolution is on
all fours with the law that applies to the percentage which may be charged in case there is no percentage mentioned in any legal document or instrument. As the hon. gentleman well knows, the principle observed in such cases is that unless there is an .express agreement to the contrary the legal percentage shall be considered as the percentage in the instrument. All this resolution proposes is that it shall be understood that the working day is eight hours unless there is an agreement to the contrary. It is not intended to deprive the working man or any other citizen of the right to make an agreement which he himself considers fair and just, and as for the compulsion that may be behind that, and which the hon. gentleman evidently fears.

I can only say that organized labour will take care of that matter.	[DOT]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: II think that the purpose of my hon. friend, so far as to afford an opportunity to members to express their views on the eight-hour day is concerned, haS been well served. But the resolution itself, worded as it is, will not, I fear, be of any real service to labour. I may frankly say that I am pretty sure that labour would not regard very favourably a resolution of this Parliament approving an eight-hour day witlj the option 'to any one who might care to do so to make any contract he wishes in regard to the hours of labour.	.


John Hampden Burnham: If the eight-hour day were enacted without this clause may I ask my hon. friend if there is anything on earth to prevent a man working eighteen hours a day if he chose?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If this Parliament enacted an eight-hour day as labour is demanding in certain industries, it would be necessary to provide certain machinery to see that the law was complied with. In many factories in the country to-day the working day is fixed at eight hours, and if in these factories any effort were made to work men for eighteen hours the owners would be liable to the penalty provided. Simply to pass a pious resolution saying that Parliament is in favour of an eight-hour day but also in favour of allowing the individual the right to make any contract he pleases in regard to hours is to raise a hope which it is impossible to realize.


John Hampden Burnham: All this resolution does is to raise a presumption.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend's purpose is served in giving an opportunity for discussion, and in doing so I think he has undoubtedly rendered some service. But in pressing the resolution to a division, I think it would be wise that we should all understand that if we did vote for it we would not be enacting anything one way or the other that is material so far as labour and capital are concerned.	,
There is another clause in the resolution to which some attention should be devoted before a vote is asked upon it. The resolution refers to the extent of the jurisdiction of this Parliament.
That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that to the extent of the jurisdiction of this Parliament a national eight-hour working day should be established immediately

There is an old-time saying, Mr. Speaker, that it is not a wise thing to buy a pig in a poke; and I think my hon. friend will agree with me that it is equally unwise to legislate in the dark. Without knowing what the jurisdiction of Parliament is on this question of an eight-hour day, whether Parliament has a wide jurisdiction or no jurisdiction at all, I submit that it would be unwise to pass a resolution of this kind. My purpose, when I rose, was to point this fact out to the President of the Privy Council (Hon. Mr. Rowell) and to express the hope that when he speaks on the resolution he wall inform the House whether the Government has considered the question of ascertaining what the jurisdiction of this Parliament is in the matter of eight-hour day legislation. I think it is important that that phase of the subject should be made perfectly clear before any considerable discussion takes place in Parliament on the eight-hour day problem. The one thing we are interested to know is, what is the jurisdiction, of this Parliament in the matter. When we have ascertained that, we should proceed to the next step and say how far we think this Parliament should go under such jurisdiction as it may have. If the Government has not already taken steps to ascertain the proper jurisdiction of Parliament, I think it-would be in the interests of labour and capital and, indeed, of all classes, that this should be done and that-the House should be informed accordingly.


Mr. JOHN BEST (Dufferin):: Canada at
the present time, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, is trying to devise ways and means of increasing production and retaining its men on the farms, and this resolution, it seems to me, would have the effect of luring boys from the rural districts. It must be remembered that half of our population reside on the farms. It may be said that this has nothing to do with the farmers, but I do not see how we can deal with this matter without considering how it will affect the farmers. The young man is going to try and get the largest wages he can and to work the shortest hours. We are all doing that; we are all trying to make the most out of the shortest time. How the farmers are going to secure help to work twelve or thirteen hours a day when there is a legal eight-hour day is something I cannot understand. That is one of the principal reasons why there is this great exodus from the farms to the cities. Too many of our young men-and middle-aged men too-are going to the cities. Ask them the question and they will tell you that they are going


IX, 1920
[Stage Direction]
from the farm to the city because they cannot work the farms themselves and they cannot get help. I think that there should be no legislation put on the statute book at the present time that will take men away from the farms to the cities. Many men I know would be quite willing to stay on the farm if they could get help. But th£ 'farmer and his wife have perhaps got too old to work the farm; they cannot get help, and they are forced to give up the farm and go to the* city. As soon as the war started wages became extremely high, young men went to the city, and you cannot get them to return to the farm.
I am not in favour of any class of men working extremely long hours. There are some kinds of work at which six, and probably four hours would be enough, but if these industries can hire men to work for whatever hours they wish, why should we put a law of this kind on the statute book? We are told that it is only for the factories, offices and shops. If that is so why not say that they can hire them for as many hours as they choose the same as the farmers can? We are told that the farmer can hire his help for whatever hours he wishes. That is all very well; I suppose he 9 p.m. can, but the question is to get the men. Why do farmers work such long hours?-they are asked by the people in the cities and towns of Canada. City people are howling about the high cost of living, and I quite agree that it is very high. Farm products in many cases are high, but I want to say that the very moment you enact the eight-hour day you are going to increase the cost of living. If we attempt to work on the farms even ten hours a day we will reduce, in the first place, the production of milk and butter to the extent of one-sixth at least. When I was on the faim we tried to milk the cows at seven o'clock in the morning and at seven at night. We did that in order to milk them at .a regular hour, twelve hours apart. If we wanted to have less milk or to put the cows dry we would milk them at intervals, probably sixteen hours apart. It is impossible to produce the same amount of milk, butter, cheese, wheat or grains of all kinds if we are going to have an eight-hour day. The difference between the farm and the shop and factory is this: They can get a supply of men and they can put on different'shifts to keep the work going, but who could say that a farmer in this Dominion could hire two sets of men? It is impossible, you cannot get one, let alone getting two. Are you going to tie
down the farmer, who has worked for fifty or sixty years twelve or fourteen hours a day, to an eight-hour day? If he is willing to give the wages to get men to work eight hours a day in the field must he and his wife work twelve and fourteen hours in order to feed the stock and milk the cows? This is a great injustice to the farmers of the country. If we want to put legislation on the statute book to take more men off the farm we could not devise anything more calculated to bring that about than the measure suggested by this resolution, and if we adopt it we are going to be up against a greater difficulty than many of us are aware of.
I realize, the same as my hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) and many other members of this House, that there is a great clamour for short hours but the people living in the cities, as well as others, should not do anything that is going to injure the great basic industry of Canada, which is agriculture. II feel satisfied that many thousands will leave the farm if, as a result of this Bill being placed on the statute book, they cannot get farm labour. As I said before, a young man going out and seeking a job will say: I will look where I can get the most pay and the shortest hours. That will not be on the farm. With all respect to the labour men, I believe as the hon. member for Peterborough said, that they should be allowed to hire at whatever hours they wish, and I believe that that view is shared by many hon. members of this House. Therefore, the law would be no good; as the hon. the leader of the. Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said, the law would be a farce if it did not bind anybody. If you put a law on the statute -book and say that we must stick to the eight-hour day you will ruin the farmers whereas if you put it the other way and say that the manufacturers or the employer can hire as he wishes the law will be ineffective. There are jobs that are so hazardous and extremely hard that four, six or eight hours would be sufficient for them, but out in the open air, where the conditions are favourable and conducive to health, there is nothing to hinder a man from working ten or twelve hours a day. We see masons, carpenters and other mechanics clamouring for eight hours a day instead of nine or ten. Any one who says that you can get as much work done in eight hours as in ten does not know what he is talking about. We have had too much of this practice of limiting the amount of work that a man can do in a day. Where
[Stage Direction]
a man could probably lay double the amount of brick that another man could he is restrained, he is not allowed to work to his capacity, but he must only lay so many brick. There is no encouragement for the man who is willing to work and make an honest living. I would ask the members of this House to remember that agriculture is the basic industry of Canada, and that if you support this Bill you will do more to take the boys off the farm than could possibly be done by any other measure that could be brought before this House.
Mr. GEORGE BOYCE (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have always been a farmer and I know the conditions under which work on the farm is carried on. I think that this measure to limit the day's work to eight hours is one of the most dangerous that could be brought before this House, and I am of the opinion that before it is adopted it should receive the most careful consideration. The agricultural industry represents a production of $1,500,000,000, an amount which exceeds the production of all the other industries in Canada. Such an important industry as that of agriculture should be given due consideration and any measure affecting it so vitally as this one does should not be hastily dealt with. The House would do well to bear in mind the fact that four and a half per cent of the farmers and seventeen per cent of the farm labourers have gone to the cities. Why? Because of shorter hours and greater pay. A measure, such as is now proposed, to legalize the eight-hour day would be- very dangerous from the point of view of agriculture. There is not a farmer who could get any hired help, no matter what price he offered, because	the	men
would have gone to the	cities for
shorter hours and still larger wages. Eight hours a day is very short. For instance, how can you get a crop in if you start at eight o'clock in the morning and finish at five in the evening? How are you to take your harvest off within such working hours? And how are you going to get your seeding done? I know I could never get. my farm work done within tho'se hours, and I would very much like to see some of those men who are advocating the eight-hour day go out on the farm; undoubtedly -it would teach them a lesson. It is an utter impossibility to talk of farming on an eight-hour day. I never was an advocate of long hours-I never wept into the field earlier than seven o'clock in the morning, and I always left at six o'clock in the 
evening. If a man cannot stand that many hours in the field he is no good at farming; he should become an inmate of some charitable institution.
I think it would have been better had this matter not been brought forward. Factory men are well looked after by their local unions; and I say, let farmers hire as they can. There is no doubt that at the present time no farmer or his help has to work excessively long hours, but if this law goes into force it will'cause trouble. If you hire a man for a month, six months, or a year, he will turn round and tell you that he has to work only eight hours a day, and if you want him to work beyond those hours you will have to pay him, not regular wages, but, I suppose, time and-a-half. We see that in connection with railroads and business concerns, and it is safe to assume that we farmers would be treated in the same way.
Our farmers do not work for fun-I certainly never did-and I want to tell you that just as soon as you pass this Bill your cost of living will rise fifteen or twenty per cent higher- and God knows it is high enough already. It cannot be otherwise. Again, look at the European nations; there is not one of them but has a twelve or fourteen-hour day. How are you going to compete with them? We will have 1878 conditions back again, when you could not sell a pound of butter for more than ten cents. I myself have sold oats at nineteen cents a bushel, and potatoes at fifty-five cents a bushel.
I, trust, gentlemen, that before voting in favour of this resolution'you will look into it very carefully. As a member of this House I am just as anxious for the welfare of our. people as anyone, but if I voted for an eight-hour day I believe I would be voting against the best interests of the Dominion.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I understood yesterday from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) that this eight-hour question would be discussed at a later date, and I [DOT] had no idea it was coming up to-day; in fact, it is not on the Order Paper so far as I could see.
The resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that to the extent of the jurisdiction of this Parliament

Before pressing a resolution of this kind, would it not be wise for us to find out what is the jurisdiction of Parliament?
I understand from certain legal authorities that there is a difference of opinion as to

whether that jurisdiction is within the province's or the Dominion. Therefore, I am sorry that my hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. (Burnham) insists on pressing his resolution to a vote to-night.


John Hampden Burnham: Might I ask the hon. gentleman, who does he suppose has jurisdiction outside the provinces?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Outside the provinces?


John Hampden Burnham: Yes. Are there no lands outside the provinces?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Those lands are worked principally by the wolves; we have not much jurisdiction over them.


John Hampden Burnham: You said we could have no jurisdiction.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I agree absolutely with my hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Best) that labour is perfectly safe


John Hampden Burnham: Oh, oh.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: to he left alone to
regulate its hours. Employers fully realize that the labour unions are quite capable of making arrangements as to the hours of labour in the various industries. Of recent years, so far as I know, there ha$ been no trouble on that score. One business, on account of the work being very concentrated, may require very short hours of labour. We can leave it to the employers and employees to decide whether a man can do his best working four, six, eight or ten hours a day.
I think it would be a mistake for Parliament to pass a resolution of this kind, which commits us to legislation, until we know just exactly what jurisdiction we possess. As I said before, I think it is perfectly safe to leave the regulation of this matter for the industries concerned. I know industries that work their men in some branches in four-hour shifts only. I know of other industries where the shifts are six hours, and others where they are eight hours, depending on the amount of concentration required during the hours of labour. In some industries a man can work just as well' ten hours a day as eight hours. Farming is an industry, as mentioned by my hon. friend from Peterboro, that has always worked ten or twelve hours, it being a type of labour that does not call for excessive concentration. If you watch farmers you will observe that as a rule they work very leisurely except at certain times of the year; for instance, during harvesting and haying, when for a few days they may work at considerable pressure if
the weather is threatening or there is some other reason for haste. Under such circumstances you very seldom see men refuse to work even at night to save the harvest in the field. I do not think we should interfere with arrangements such as those. We have got to be guided by circumstances, and farming is very much of an industry, indeed, in this country-an industry of such vital importance that we should not attempt to interfere with its hours of labour in any shape or form.
If it is provided by statute that the length of the working day shall be eight or even ten hours, the probabilities are that men who are employed by the day and not by the year will work only during the hours specified by the statute. In that case, work on the farm would be thrown out of gear; because on the farm some of the men work certain hours and others have to work, or do work, longer. I cannot help thinking that it would be a great mistake for this House to adopt this resolution committing us to an eight-hour day for the whole of Canada. * It hasi been very well said that so far as our industries are concerned we compete with many other countries. Of course, if all -the countries which are signatories to the League of Nations accepted the eight-hour day; and it became universal, enabling all countries to compete on the same basis-except perhaps, in the matter of wages-it would be a different matter. But II think it would be a great mistake to adopt a resolution of 'this kind until we know exactly what our jurisdiction is and until we have discussed the matter thoroughly from the standpoints of the various industries throughout the country. I hope that the hon. member will - not press his resolution to a vote; if he does, I shall toe obliged to vote against it.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, in many respects I have a good deal of sympathy with the resolution. Labour has had the heavy end of the work of our country for many years. It is thought by many that the hours of labour could be reduced to the advantage of the general industrial community. But before giving my view upon that question I wish to touch, upon the point raised by the member for* North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) with regard to jurisdiction.
As I understand it, this House has not the jurisdiction to carry into effect legislation based upon such a resolution as that which has been submitted by the member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham). The jurisdiction in the matter is confined largely
o78

to the provinces. But I think that we would go a long way toward meeting the view of my hon. friend and giving an example to the provinces in connection with legislation which they might later introduce if we adopted a resolution providing that in all Government contracts of every description, whether carried out as piece work or as work sub-let to contractors, it be stipulated that *eight hours a day shall be considered the legal working day for the men engaged in these enterprises. I have not studied the matter from the legal aspect, nor am I in a position to do so; but I believe that this would he a good step to take.
II do not think it would be any infringement upon the liberty of the subject or work hardship to any contractor or working man if, in accordance with the last few' words of my hon. friend's resolution, the right to arrange for longer hours under certain circumstances should be accorded. There might be a case where an employee would be willing to work ten hours a day in order to bring about the completion of a contract at a given time, provided, of course, that the employee was recompensed accordingly. The proviso in the latter part of the resolution, therefore, is quite ini order.
I believe that it is not possible for all industries to comply with any regulation establishing the length of the working day at eight hours. There are processes of manufacture in this country to which such a law could not be very readily applied. Six or eight hours of labour in certain callings takes far more out of a man than ten or twelve at some lighter work. I see a good deal of force, therefore, in the argument put forward by the member for Duff-erin (Mr. Best) and member for Carleton (Mr. Boyce) with regard to the farming community.
I did not hear the address of the member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) on this subject and I do not know whether he made any allowances for weather conditions -these sometimes prevent the labourer from carrying on any work on the farm. For instance, in harvest time no work can be done in the field when the weather is wet. I am sure the member for Peterborough does not wish to suggest that if there are two or three wet days in succession the eight-hour day provision shall he considered as having been fulfilled even though no work at all was done. If, therefore, his resolution called for a forty-eight hour week instead of an eight-hour day, it would be better. For instance, one day might he wet and the next day fine, and the farm labourer could put in twelve

or fourteen hours on a fine day if it were necessary to do so in order to save'the crop, instead of saying: Well, it rained yesterday and I could not work, but it must be counted as an eight-hour day; and to-day I will only work eight hours. In fact, I am doubtful, as I have said, whether such legislation could be applied to the farming community; nor do I think it is desirable that it should. We should differentiate between the different industries. I come from an industrial city where from eight to ten . thousand workmen are employed, and our factories are endeavouring to adhere very closely to the principle of the eight-hour day. In fact, the eight-hour day is actually in vogue in some of the best factories in our community; so that without legal enactment of any kind, labour and capital have in these cases agreed that eight hours is the workingman's day. But to other industries the principle could not be applied. Suppose a man is running a single machine which has cost his employer $15,000 or $20,000, and which represents the work of fifty, or, perhaps one hundred men under the old system of hand labour. The work that used to be done by the sledge hammer and the multiplication of sledge hammers is now done by a single machine which, when a button is pushed, strikes a twenty-ton blow. When that machine, therefore, comes to a standstill a large amount of capital comes to a standstill; and if the eight-hour day principle were applied to the industry in connection with which that machine was operated it might be necessary to run two shifts of eight hours each, perhaps even three shifts, in order that that machine might be worked to full capacity. If the eight-hour day had been in vogue during the war, how many of our requirements for munitions could have been fulfilled? Not very many. It was necessary to get the very highest amount of production, and that cannot be done-by limiting the hours of labour to eight hours a day in all callings. But I am favourable to the eight-hour day;
I believe that the system should be brought into effect in Canada so far as we are able to bring it into effect. As I understood the President of the Council (Hon. Mr. Rowell) to say, it is important that in legislating for an eight-hour day for Canada as a whole we have some regard to what the other nations of the world are going to do about it. We in Canada cannot, if we establish an eight-hour day, compete with our neighbours to the south if they work on a basis of ten hours a day. If Germany is going to work twelve, fifteen or sixteen hours, to say

nothing of Japan, China and other countries which underpay their labour and exact very long hours, the eight-hour day cannot bring about the best results. An international arrangement between labour and capital throughout the whole civilized world is the final consummation for the eight-hour day proposition.


John Hampden Burnham: Do I understand the
hon. gentleman to say that the Chinese must agree to this first?


William Foster Cockshutt: I did not say so, but I say it is desirable that all nations so far as possible should agree to it. I hope we are a little more advanced than the Chinese, but they are coming up pretty fast and they -are competing with us, and we must have some attention to what is going oil in outside nations. That is the point I wish to make, and it should be taken into consideration. I am not clear as _to what a day's work should consist of, but it should really consist of a certain product. A certain product should be turned out in a day's work. I know the hon. member for West Peterborough has a great regard for the ten commandments, one of which says: Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work. Whether we can do that in an eight-hour day or not, I am not quite clear, but we are commanded to do six day's work in the week whether we are engaged as labourers or otherwise. Whether we are working with our hands, or our heads, it makes little difference, everybody in this country is supposed to work for his daily bread. Labour has thought-and I think justly-that they have been oppressed somewhat in the past in being compelled to work too long hours. Therefore, while I have a very broad and strong sympathy with the resolution of my hon. friend,-and, in fact, I am personally committed to it, but that does not amount to much, because I am only a humble member of the House-I should like to see a large measure of legislation along the lines I have indicated.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Is
there a commandment that forbids one from robbing a man of his health or killing him by making him run a fifteen thousand dollar machine?


William Foster Cockshutt: Some of those expensive machines are run with less individual effort than is expended on very much lighter work, and take very much less out of the operator than does some very much lighter work. What is necessary is that the man should be very careful not to
get his hand or leg or something of that kind into the machine. It requires constant attention and great activity on his part to see that he does not get hurt. The mere pressing of a button and stopping the machine when the operation is completed could be performed by a child, but it re-ouires an expert man to know when the piocess is completed. I suppose the hon member is aware that the Workmen's Compensation Act is in force in Ontario, and if any manufacturer has a man injured in his factory, he has to pay very heavily, and, T think, rightly so. Therefore, the workingman is very well protected against accidents that may occur in factories, and an employer is obliged to pay what is considered a fair recompense to a man for the loss of any member of his body or for being maimed in any way whatever.


Air. JOHN ALBERT SEXSMITH (Peterborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a great mistake to adopt this resolution just at present and to say that an eight-hour day was the legal working day for the labourers of this country. I Lave, however, no objection to the eight. hour day. My heart goes out to the labouring man of Canada and, in fact of the world, who works eight hours or ten hours a day or whatever number of hours a day he has to work and works hard. If present commercial and financial conditions in Canada will allow a citizen of this country to make a good living by working eight hours a day, aye, by working only six hours a day, then I say: Go to it, and let that be the working day, but I do not think circumstances will permit that. Never before in Canada were we,looking and waiting and asking more anxiously for greater production, and I do not think I am saying anything wide of the fact when I say that there never before was a time when people wanted to do less and get more for the little they did. A few weeks ago I noticed that the Post Office Department of the United States sent out what one might call questionnaires to 290,000 different farmers asking them what that department could do to assist the farming community in the way of greater production or in getting labour on their farms. A -short time ago they had received some forty odd thousand replies, of which over ninety per cent, if my memory serves me aright, indicated the intention of either quitting the farm altogether or curtailing it to such an extent as to permit the farmer to run it with his own labour. They said in their replies that the reason for their intention

was that they could not compete with the high prices paid in the city and the short hours. We all know that labour in this city, as in every city not only of Canada but of this continent, is shouting about the high cost of living. Some speakers have already said that they would not object to the eight-hour day if it were not applied to the farmer. I am not speaking particularly in the interest of the farmer; I am convinced that the farmer cannot operate successfully with an eight-houi day; but if the eight-hour day were applied generally in the industries in cities and towns, what would be the result? Why, you would not have in a county a baker's dozen of young men on the farms. Just last night, I happened to look over the municipal statistics for the province of Ontario, and according to the census statistics sent out by the department, from the end of 191) to the end of 1917 there were 28,000 fewer people living in the rural municipalities. That means that 28,000 people had left the rural municipalities and. I suppose, had gone to the cities where probably they could get $6 for eight hours' work. Just in conclusion, 1 would , say that I am heartily in sympathy with the very shortest hours of labour under which the work this country may be carried on successfully, but I do not think it would redound, physically, mentally or in any other way, to the benefit of Canada for our men to work six hours a day and play eighteen. Why, when Adam was put out of the Garden of Eden he was told "By the sweat of thy brow shalt thou earn thy bread," but nobody wants to sweat these days. While I am in sympathy with the labouring man, I think it should be left to the employers and the men themselves to work the hours they choose. If Canada could carry on effectively on a six-hour day, I would not object; but under present conditions, not only in Canada but throughout the world, I do not think that is possible. If this resolution is pressed to a vote, I do not think it would be wise for us to say by our action in this House'that an eight-hour day should be the standard working day all over Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member for West
Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) has brought before the House a very important subject, and it lias been the means of bringing out a very interesting and instructive debate. I would indulge the hope that in accomplishing that my hon. friend had done all that 
he could expect to accomplish at the present stage. I do not quite see what good end is to be served by dividing the House on this matter. His resolution, naturally enough, does not enact anything. It expresses a broad general opinion in favour of the eight-hour day, and most of us, I think, are prepared in general terms to subscribe to that. I quite realize that for most occupations eight hours is a fair day's work, and if a man can avoid working more than that, in most occupations, it would be better for himself and I hope better for the community. But we^have already declared in general terms that we subscribe to the eight-hour idea. It has been included, as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) has mentioned, in the Peace Treaty which we approved a year ago. So we.have already done in effect what my hon. friend asks us to do now, and that is to give a broad general expression of approval of the eight-hour system. It seems to me that before we can go beyond that we ought to have something more definite before us. We ought to have the Bill, because a man may be in favour of the principle of an eight-hour laiw, but when you come to apply it in detail, it may not be so easily worked out as some of us would like it to be. I do not think that my hon. friend by pressing this to a division can get one step further than he has already gone. We have already declared our approval of the eight-hour idea, and that is all my hon. friend wants us to do here. The President of the Privy Council in discussing another matter to-day told us that as a consequence of the discussions and conferences that had taken place rising out of the Peace Treaty the obligation rested upon every government that was a party to the International Labour Conference to bring forward legislation in favour of the eight-hour law, and of course it follows that he must bring forward a measure of that kind this session, so far as it is wdthin the competence of this Parliament to deal with the matter. With that assurance^ for that was the effect of the statement of the President of the Privy Council, I do not see what good we can accomplish by dividing the House at the present time.


John Hampden Burnham: Do I understand the hon. gentleman practically to identify my resolution with the statement made by the President of the Privy Council? .


William Stevens Fielding: It is not for me to put interpretations on the statement of the President of the Privy Council, except as they occur to everybody present. I do not

think I have misstated his position. I asked him to-day what would be the consequences of this Labour Conference, and he replied that every government that participated in the Conference is under an obligation to submit to its Parliament the results of the conclusions arrived at. Very well; the conclusion arrived at is favourable to the eight-hour' law.


John Hampden Burnham: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: And the President of the Privy Council told us in effect that the Government would be prepared to carry out its obligation. '


John Hampden Burnham: Certainly, and we will vote for the measure.


William Stevens Fielding: I am a little more
patient than my hon. friend. I am willing to wait a little while until the Bill is before us in all its details.


Mr. DANIEL LEE REDMAN (East Calgary) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I
would care ic give any opinion on the extent of jurisdiction which this House might have in this matter. Generally speaking, one would think that under the British North America Act, it was a matter primarily for the provinces to deal with. Whether our new relationship in the League of Nations gives the matter an international or a broadly national aspect is another question. There is no precedent to guide us, for these conditions have but newly arisen. However, the mover of this resolution has- guarded against any question of jurisdiction arising, by limiting his resolution to the extent of the jurisdiction which this House may have, and so I regard it more or less as calling for an expression of general opinion in regard to the eight-hour day.
I think reason is largely on the side of the eight-hour day. A day's work may sometimes be too short, but many a day's work has been made too long in the past. Personally I think eight hours is a fair and reasonable working day, and I believe that in most instances you would get just as much work done in eight hours as in nine or ten. Making the working day eight hours would not limit production so much as do certain feelings which sbmetimes exist among working men. In some parts of Canada, for instance, among members of certain organizations, not labour organizations, but which have among their membership some labour men, there has been an absolute propaganda against production. That is the kind of influence we must be
in a position to fight, and if we want to be in a position to fight unreasonable demands such as those for a six-hour or a seven-hour day, we must be in a clean position ourselves; we must give our opinion in favour of the things which are fair and the things which are right. I believe the eight-hour day is a fair and' reasonable proposition, and I think it would be a mistake if this House declared itself as being opposed to it.
I think it would be giving the wrong sort of leadership to the country, and would create feelings of unrest which would not tend to increase production. We have had a Factory Act in Alberta for the last year or two, which among other provisions limits the hours of work in many industries to eight. The Act has worked fairly well; there may have been some difficulties, but on the whole we.have carried on, and I believe that with the better feeling and cooperation that came when labour was given this reasonable working day, we got greater production than when we forced the men to work longer hours. The eight-hour day will give them more time for recreation, self-improvement, and for looking after those interests which a man must attend to outside of his ordinary business. I have no hesitation in stating that I am in favour of the principle of the eight-hour day, but I realize that it would not be wise to make the law operative in some - industries for some tihie to come, until they have got on a basis where they could carry on successfully under these new conditions.
Mi-. ALPHONSE YERVILLE (St. Denis): Mr. Speaker, this is not a new question in this House, although to many members it may be new. An eight-hour measure .was presented to the House in 1911, and got its second reading and was considerd in committee, but the dissolution of the House prevented the Bill from going through the Senate. In 1912 no Bill was presented; tliere was a change of Government. I presented that Bill myself in 1911 and was in hopes that it would become law. Nothing was done in 1913. In 1914 the war broke out. This resolution proposes nothing new. 1 believe my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) supported the Bill when it was before the House on the occasion I speak of, and he either said that it did not go far enough or that it went too far. Ii my memory serves me well,' I am inclined to think 'his opinion was -that it went too far. II think we should bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, the important fact- that any legislation that may be introduced by any gov-

ei-nment in regard to the -working classes should pay due respect to the -welfare of the sound element in labour. As we all know, there are two elements of supreme consequence in the life of the civilized world to-day: One which is seeking to bring about destruction, and the other which is endeavouring to be constructive. And I' think that the sound element of labour will assuredly win in the end. They are doing so in this country and also in the United States. Any legislation, therefore, which can be enacted for the relief of those who are now asking for an eight-hour working day will serve to create a better feeling and understanding in the country and will do more towards the reconciliation of classes and the restoration of peace than anything else. I think that any one who reads what is transpiring in this country and elsewhere will agree with me when I say that the unsound element-if I may classify certain people under that term-are not very numerous, although they are very noisy and will drag along with them large numbers of men who follow them inconsiderately, not really knowing where they are going. On the other hand, the sound element has been fighting to counteract the influence oif destructive agencies and I believe that a great deal of success has attended the efforts of those men in the community who have tried to bring about peace and goodwill. It is no more than right that every consideration should be given to this question, which is one of the most important that could be brought before Parliament. My hon. friend from Brantford made the statement that the principle could be applied to public works. That was exactly the object of the eight-hour Bill of 1911. I am not prepared to say just how far the Government can go in - its jurisdiction; but I am confident that during the present session -we shall have a measure of this nature that will furnish an opportunity to discuss the merits of the eight-hour day. At the present time I do not think I need enter into that question.


Mr. CHARLES ROBERT HARRISON (Nipissing):: I feel myself somewhat in the position of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), I had been in hopes that the debate would not come on at this time, because I have a lot of data in connection with the eight-hour day from different corporations proving that they have been more successful, and that their output has been even greater, under an eight-hour day than it was when they worked ten and twelve hours a day. Those data, I regret to say, I have not with me at this moment, and I

cannot give to the subject that degree of justice which I should otherwise have been in a position to give to it. I cannot agree with t.he hon. member for North Oxford in the statement that labour organizations should look after the working hours for labouring men. Practically speaking, the labour organizations take care of the union men of the country, but there is a great army of labouring men and women who do not belong to any organization. I should therefore like to see some legislation put on tiie statute book affording those people whose occupations do not entitle them to membership in labour organizations some degree of protection. There seems to be an opinion, almost an apprehension, on the part of some members that Canada may be in the lead in enacting an eight-hour day; but there is no ground for this assumption, as the following extracts in regard to the eight-hour day movement abroad will clearly show:
United States

In the United States, federal legislation providing for an eight-hour day in certain Government contract work existed prior to 1892, hut it was vaguely worded and uncertain in effect. An Act of 1890 provided for a straight eight-hour day for labourers and mechanics employed hy the Federal Government or by contractors or sub-contractors on public works.
Twenty-nine states of the union have enacted legislation reducing to eight hours the working day for employees in public employment or in private employment on contract work for national, state or municipal governments. At the end of 1918, fourteen states had enforced the eight-hour day for miners and eight states had forbidden the employment of men in smelting operations for longer than eight hours per day. Eleven states provide for an eight-hour day for men employed in industries involving special hazards.'
By agreements between employers and workmen or hy the award of an official labour adjustment body, an eight-hour day has been put in force in several industries. The members of the International Typographical Union won a concession on this point in 1906. An eight-hour day and forty-four week is the rule for the greater part of the building trades. The American Woollen Company, the largest of its kind in the United States, the United States Steel Corporation, the Ford Automobile Company and other large industrial establishments have adopted the basic eighf-hour day. Australia-
In Australia hours of labour are limited bylaw in the ease of factories and shops, the general working week being forty-eight hours, and this period has been standardized in most occupations. A strong demand has now arisen for a week of forty-eight hours.
New Zealand-
In New Zealand the Factories Act, 1908, made the forty-eight hour week legal in all places of occupation where two or more persons are employed in the preparation, of goods for trade or sale.

France-
In April of the present year, an Aot was passed by the French Parliament providing that the working hours of all workers shall not exceed eight a day or forty-eight a week, or an equivalent limit over some period other than a week. The application of this principle to * particular industries and localities is entrusted to the government.
Italy-
A working day of eight hours has been introduced recently in the metal, engineering and shipbuilding industries, and in the principle textile trades in Italy. An unanimous decision by the agriculturists and representatives of agricultural workers was reached in April, 1919, whereby the hours of work for agricultural labourers hired by the day were to be reduced to eight. Overtime was to be allowed under certain conditions at special rates.
I had an opportunity of going through the country with the Industrial Commission last year, and in the great majority of places we visited we found a demand for a shorter working day based on the desire for more leisure and energy to devote to things of life other than work, and a general approval of employers in this regard-in our report we mentioned such industries as farming, fishing and logging. These three were mentioned as being industries in which it is almost impossible to adopt an eight-hour day. I hope this motion will not be voted down. I expect that the question will come up in the House in the shape of a Bill and I will be prepared to say a great deal more on it than I have to-night. But if it comes to a vote I can assure you 1 am going to vote in favour of this resolution.
Mr. WILLIAM D. EULER (North Waterloo) : Mr. Speaker, last year I asked the question of the Government as to whether they intended to enact eight-hour legislation. At that time a member of the Government gave the leply to the House that this Parliament had no power to enact such legislation. Since that time the principle has been embodied in the Treaty of Peace, and later still it was endorsed by the Canadian representatives to the Industrial Conference held at Washington. In the early days of this session I again placed upon the Order Papei a question as to whether the Government was still of the opinion that Parliament had no power to deal with this question, and also, if it was no longer of that opinion, whether it intended at this session to enact the eight-hour day. Up to this time no reply has been given to that question. During the debate this afternoon the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) who was one of the delegates to the Industrial Conference at Washington made the statement that the eight-hour day principle was endorsed at the session of the Conference by a vote of something like 90 to 2. He made the further statement that if a resolution of that kind was carried by a vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the Conference the Governments of the respective countries were obligated to translate that action into legislation. I inquired of the minister this afternoon whether it was the intention of the Government to bring in legislation to enact the eight-hour day in Canada and I received the reply, as perhaps most of the members of the House know, that there is still some question as to the power of Parliament to enact such legislation. It seems to me that the Government has had sufficient time since last year to. come to some decision on this matter. Perhaps it is an uncharitable thing to say but the thought that is present in my mind is that the Gov-10 p.m. eminent is evading the issue or perhaps, in other words, is doing what it has done before, especially with reference to the daylight saving matter- it is passing the buck. It is true that the motion as framed has po binding effect. It still leaves it open to the men and the employers to bargain as to the number of hours they desire to work in a day. That may be quite true but it does affirm the general principle that in the opinion of the Canadian Parliament eight hours of honest work should under ordinary circumstances, constitute a full day's labour. With that sentiment I am heartily in accord. I am free to admit that in certain activities, such as farming and others which might be named, it would not be possible to conduct these activities on the basis of an eight-hour day, but I do believe that in industrial centres, such as the city which I have the honour to represent, the city of Kitchener, in many industries and perhaps in most, where the men must time their actions according to the demands of the machines which they serve, and which put in many instances an intense strain upon them, eight hours of real, strenuous, hard, faithful labour is sufficient for any man. I would also affirm that, while I believe that at the present time, succeeding the conclusion of the war, production is more necessary than ever it was before, yet man. after all, if he is not simply to consider living as existing, is entitled to just a little more than the hours of labour and the hours of sleep. I believe he might very well divide his life up into three shifts,

 eight hours of labour, eight hours of recreation and eight hours of sleep. Fpr that rea-

son I am going to vote for the motion if it is pressed to a division. Although it does not bind the employer and employee definitely, it does affirm the one principle that eight hours of real, hard work, constitutes a sufficient day of labour. While that principle has already been affirmed by the League of Nations and by the Industrial Conference in Washington, such an affirmation coming from the representatives of the people in the Canadian Parliament, will constitute a good deal of an object lesson and serve as an ideal for both employer and employee.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford) :: Mr. Speaker, the motion under discussion moved by my hon. friend from West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) is certainly one the principle of which has engaged the attention of the people not only of Canada but of all the civilized countries to a very great extent for many years past. Organized labour has been agitating for something of this nature for quite a number of years. In many occupations, when labour organizations were first formed, it was absolutely necessary that some reforms should be made in the conditions under which they were operating at that time. I have listened to the discussion to-night, and the question to my mind is one of such great importance that I question very much the wisdom of hastily arriving at a decision on this resolution at the present time. Undoubtedly there will be other legislation dealing with it as it is now' embodied in the Treaty of Peace and the question will clearly have to be dealt with by nations which are members of the League of Natiohs.
We have all heard it stated repeatedly that since the war has ended there is a good deal of insanity prevalent throughout the world. If there was ever a time in the history of the world when people required their sanity to enable them to carry on it is at this time, and under the conditions which have to be met. During the years prior to the war there was a worldwide movement from the rural districts to the industrial centres. This movement attained such proportions that it was predicted by far-Seeing students of economics who had studied the question very closely that the day would soon be reached when this world was likely to find itself up against starvation.
The removal during the war of hundreds of millions of men from the productive activities of life to that of destruction has brought about a condition of affairs that 
to my mind is most serious. I am firmly convinced that should the world experience a short crop during the present year starvation will be experienced in many countries, and many people will suffer terrible privations as a consequence of the very low food supply. _
I do not like to contemplate the effect that such legislation will have on agriculture, it having been already referred to. Personally, I firmly believe that the fixing of an eight hour day will ultimately benefit those who .remain in agriculture, those who persist to the end, just as .much as it will benefit those more immediately affected. I cfnmly believe that those who to-day are agitating for such legislation are going to defeat the very object they now have in view, that is, to reduce the cost of living. It is absolutely impossible to bring that about and do what they are now urging this Parliament and the Parliaments of other countries to do.
We have heard a great deal about organized labour, but the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Harrison) has referred to the fact that we have in. this country a tremendous army of unorganized labour. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out again that it was somewhat significant that last year we had an International Industrial Conference in the Victoria Museum building which was supposed to deal with all such questions of labour and industry as we are discussing to-night and if possible find a solution for them, but at which this great army of unorganized labour was not represented, neither was the great basic industry of agriculture. I ask. Sir, whether that was a proper means by which to arrive at a satisfactory solution of this question?
An eight-hour day seems ideal, and under most conditions it is. As a matter of fact, it is much longer than a great many people work to-day. I could not help wondering whether the hon. member for Peterboro would compel some people to work eight hours a day, as he refers to this as a National Eight-hour Day. The Government of this country for many years past have established a national working day of much fewer hours. How many people do you suppose work eight hours a day in the Civil Service? Why, a whole army of them never think of working that many hours, and the Government by legislation made this possible many years ago,-they blazed the way so far as this agitation is concerned. But certain people doing business for this country have more than an eight or
\

a ten hour day and some of them get very little for their services.
I am going to use this by way of illustration, although it may lend strength to the argument advanced by the hon. member for West Peterboro. Personally, I may say that I have always been a strong believer in competition. I believe that it is as essential to proper development as anything could possibly be. But unfortunately there is a tendency on the part of this country and many other countries do enact legislation to keep people all their life in a sort of straight jacket or in the nursery, so to speak. There is too much of a tendency to legislate people into doing things whether they really feel disposed to do them or not. I have always believed that when boys and girls reach adolescence they become endowed with sufficient intelligence to be thrown on their own resources. One of the first things that a child meets with when it enters the school is competition, and I believe competition is vitally necessary to the proper development of the child. The fact that children are in competition with one another during the course of their education develops faculties which enable them as they grow up to make the best of their opportunities in life. Now we propose legislation that will make such competition unnecessary.
Legislation has been passed by many bodies of organized labour restricting the amount of work that a man shall do, so that he is held in check. Now, according to this resolution, it is proposed to say to him: You must work only so many hours a day. Work is what is required in the world to-day, and it does not matter how much we may be favourable to an eight-hour day, I believe it is absolutely essential that we should defer taking any action in the matter until we get on our feet again and have overcome some of the difficulties now facing us, the natural result of sacrifices due to the war.
The late James J. Hill, the sage of the West, some years ago stated that inside twenty years the world would be up against starvation. To-day the situation is a very serious and critical one indeed. It is somewhat significant that almost all those who have spoken on this resolution are not employers of labour to any great extent. I believe that the large employers and their employees are arriving at a satisfactory solution of their difficulties, and that Parliament is not called upon at the present
time to enact legislation to make it compulsory for people to do what they ought to do by mutual consent.
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of discussing this matter at length, but I want again to reiterate that these restrictions on outppt are bound to affect industries that may not be organized and have taken no steps to protect themselves. I believe the very fact that you make conditions so much more desirable in certain walks of life has a tendency to attract people to them, until eventually you have an over-supply, with the result that some other industry essential to the welfare of the community suffers. I am convinced that that is what is the matter with the world to-day so far as food production is concerned. It was the case in most of the countries in Europe prior to the war, it is the case in the United States to-day, as it is also the case in Canada. This condition has not come about quickly; it has been a gradual growth extending over many years, until it has eventually _ brought about the very thing that organized labour sought to obtain for itself, that is, the elimination of competition. Production has become so curtailed and supplies consequently have become so scarce that prices of food are abnormally high, unorganized industry is reaping advantages that it would not have secured had there been a great many more people in that class. That is the way it is affecting agriculture at the present time.' As I have said, I am not too sure that those who engage in agriculture would suffer as the result of the establishment of an eight-hour day. But I do want to utter a word of warning against the danger which will threaten the lives of millions during the coming year if we curtail and restrict the production of food, which an eight-hour day will undoubtedly do. Weather conditions are variable and uncertain, and in view of the extent to which people are deserting agricultural occupations all over the world I think it would be foolhardy on our part to consider such legislation as is suggested by this resolution under present conditions.
On motion of Mr. I. E. Argue (Swift Current) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m:



Friday, March 12, 1920.